BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Humber Bridge Bill

Bill read the Third time and passed.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Motion made, That the Bill be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be considered on Tuesday 4 June.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Judicial Review (Reforms)

Caroline Lucas: What recent discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on the costs and benefits of his reforms to judicial review.

Helen Grant: The impact assessment of 23 April and the Government response to the consultation clarify the costs and benefits of our reforms, which are intended to tackle delays and reduce the burden, while upholding access to justice.

Caroline Lucas: Figures published by the Minister’s Department confirm that the proportion of judicial review applications for planning and environmental cases has remained unchanged since 2005. Does she agree that, rather than facing a culture of so-called meritless judicial review applications, what we actually face is a meritless attack on people’s fundamental constitutional rights to challenge unlawful behaviour by public bodies and protect their environment, without a shred of evidence to substantiate the changes she is rolling out?

Helen Grant: I do not agree with the hon. Lady. Judicial review is a critical check on the power of the state—and it will remain so—but it is also subject to abuse, stifling innovation, frustrating reforms and imposing unnecessary costs on individuals, business and the economy. Our reforms will tackle the burden while maintaining the benefits of the rule of law, access to justice and the right to a fair hearing.

Julian Brazier: In welcoming my hon. Friend’s remarks, may I urge her to look at other, wider areas where judicial review might be considered to some extent to be supplanting Parliament by interfering with the answerability of Government? I am thinking of some immigration tribunals and areas of the benefits system, where judicial review has been misused.

Helen Grant: This is an area that we will keep under review. I am very happy to take sensible suggestions from my hon. Friend.

Jeremy Corbyn: How can the Minister possibly claim that these changes are not damaging access to justice, when she knows full well that by reducing the possibility of taking cases to judicial review, public authorities and the Executive cannot be held to account by ordinary citizens? Why is she destroying what is so important in our justice system in this country?

Helen Grant: We believe our proposals strike the right balance. They are proportionate and targeted, and do not restrict access to justice, the rule of law or the right to a fair hearing. Our proposals also encompass a number of safeguards to help vulnerable people.

Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree with the principle that public power should not be exercised to abrogate fundamental common-law values, at least unless abrogation is required or those concerned are empowered by clear primary legislation? If we have better and clearer primary legislation, we are likely to have less judicial review.

Helen Grant: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an astute and sensible point.

Offending by Probationers

Jason McCartney: What steps he plans to take to reduce the number of offences committed by people on probation.

Chris Grayling: On 9 May, I announced “Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform”, which sets out how we will transform the way in which we rehabilitate offenders to make progress in driving down reoffending rates. Under our proposals, for the first time in recent history, every offender sentenced to less than 12 months in prison will receive statutory supervision and rehabilitation in the community when they are released from custody. Alongside that, we will open up the market to a diverse mix of providers, freeing them to innovate and paying them by results, so that they focus relentlessly on reducing reoffending.

Jason McCartney: I would like to take this opportunity to praise the innovative work that my local Kirklees probation service is doing to bring down offending rates. Rates in West Yorkshire are down by 10% and in Kirklees the reduction is nearly 17%. I spent time with my local service over the Easter recess. What effect will the extension to a minimum of 12 months’ supervision in the community now have?

Chris Grayling: Good work is being done in many parts of our probation service, but overall, rehabilitation is not delivering what we expected it to, and reoffending rates are rising. However, I expect the teams that are delivering excellent work on the ground in our probation service to play an important part in the future that we have unveiled. In many areas, we will see those probation officers forming their own social enterprises and partnerships to deliver a high-quality service to us.

Barry Sheerman: When I visited the Kirklees probation service, which is based in Huddersfield, I found people who were very demoralised by some of the Government’s proposals. They feel that they are undervalued, and I agree with them. The probation service is probably the most effective and efficient part of the criminal justice system. Are not the Government undermining its morale?

Chris Grayling: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is simply not right. The Select Committee found recently that only 25% of the time probation staff spent at work was spent working with offenders—the Committee’s Chairman is here today and he will recall this—yet the biggest block of offenders who are likely to reoffend get no support at all. That is why change is necessary.

Jenny Chapman: We very much support the Government’s moves to extend supervision, but they also want private security firms to take responsibility for supervising medium-risk offenders in the community. That would include people who have committed violent and sexual offences. How do the Government plan to ensure that those private security firms have the appropriate skills and training to protect the public?

Chris Grayling: It is a pleasure to see the hon. Lady in her place today. I have begun to forget what the shadow Secretary of State looks like. His team regularly attends these events, but there are some faces missing.
	The whole point of what we are trying to do is to address the glaring gap in the system that is leading to reoffending rates that are simply unacceptable. The mechanisms that we are putting in place to manage risk will provide a simple means of transferring offenders from a medium-risk category to a high-risk category if their situation changes and if a risk assessment carried out by the public probation service requires such a transfer. The public probation service will always remain responsible for dealing with the highest-risk offenders.

Mr Speaker: I think that the Secretary of State has ambitions to deliver a public lecture on this subject, but he should preferably not do so in the Chamber today.

James Gray: Does the Secretary of State agree that one way of maintaining continuity in the records of ex-offenders under his new regime would be to welcome in-house spin-offs such as those being proposed in Wiltshire? These would involve the existing probation service becoming a separate and private individual organisation.

Chris Grayling: I very much welcome the discussions that are taking place. Support is being provided by the Cabinet Office, including financial support, for those
	members of our probation teams who want to set up their own spin-offs, and I would positively encourage them to do so.

Employment and Support Allowance (Appeals)

Sheila Gilmore: What progress he has made on improving the feedback from tribunal judges to the Department for Work and Pensions on the reasons for overturning employment and support allowance refusal decisions.

Helen Grant: The provision of feedback on reasons for tribunals’ decisions is always a matter for the judiciary. As the hon. Lady will be aware, new arrangements for this were put in place in July 2012. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is continuing to work with the judiciary, the Department for Work and Pensions and the other organisations involved to find ways of improving feedback.

Sheila Gilmore: The problem is that the feedback mechanism, which involves the use of a drop-down menu, is very brief. For example, the reason given for 40% of the overturned decisions was “cogent oral evidence”. That does not give decision makers in the DWP any real help in understanding how they can make changes that would result in fewer appeals. Surely it is necessary for the Department, which bears the cost of the appeals, to do something about this.

Helen Grant: We are continuing to work hard across Government to improve initial decision making, with the ultimate aim of reducing the number of appeals. A new pilot is being considered, and I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady with details of that.

Philip Hollobone: The waiting times for appeal hearings for employment and support allowance claims are far too long. The waiting time at the Leicester venue is now 40 weeks, which is a complete disgrace. What is the Minister going to do to sort this out?

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important to deal with these cases in a timely manner. National waiting times for ESA appeals are actually down, from 21.5 weeks in December 2011 to 16.7 weeks in December 2012. The figures are even better in Scotland, but of course more needs to be done.

Chris Bryant: That is a very good tie, by the way, Mr Speaker.
	Does the Minister agree that so many incorrect first decisions having to be overturned by judges not only causes massive grief for the families concerned but incurs significant additional cost to the taxpayer? That is a double whammy. Surely it is time we got this right.

Helen Grant: The judiciary provides feedback, which is being considered. In November 2012, over 60% of appeals allowed by tribunals had reasons for the decisions attached. As I indicated in response to the question before last, we are looking at a new pilot, and I will write to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) about it.

Helen Jones: The Minister told us earlier about what she views—wrongly in my view—as the exploitation of judicial review. Is it not the case here that poor decisions by Atos are piling work on the tribunals service and therefore costing the public more money? Why does her Department not liaise properly with the Department for Work and Pensions, or is this another case of one arm of the Government not knowing what the other is doing?

Helen Grant: It is the DWP decision makers who make decisions, but I can tell the hon. Lady that many measures are being put in place to increase capacity and reduce waiting times—

Robert Flello: Such as?

Helen Grant: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) says “such as” from a sedentary position. Those measures include recruiting more judges, securing additional venues and more Saturday sittings in addition to striving continually to improve original decision making.

Probation Service

Kate Green: What the Government’s strategy is on the future of the probation service.

Jeremy Wright: As part of our transforming rehabilitation strategy, we will create a new public sector national probation service, which will work to protect the public and build upon the expertise and professionalism already in place. The national probation service will work alongside new contracted rehabilitation providers and, in the future, the skills and expertise of probation professionals will be utilised across the public, private and voluntary sectors.

Kate Green: The Government say that private providers will support lower-risk offenders and will be paid by results, but private providers are already saying that they will accept only a small proportion of their fees from the results that they achieve. What is the real risk that providers will take and what proportion of their fee will genuinely be payment by results?

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Lady will understand that in respect of these contracts there will be a requirement for providers to meet the expectations of the courts, so in relation to court orders there will be limited room for manoeuvre as to what is done, and offenders on licence will be expected to meet the requirements of those licences. These contracts could never be 100% payment by results. We will determine the percentage they will put at risk—they will put their own money at risk in this—by consulting all those involved in this business and all those involved in rehabilitation in the future. We will reach the right conclusions; we will work through this with all those involved.

Gareth Johnson: I congratulate the Minister on his proposals to change the way in which the probation service works, particularly in respect of short-term prisoners. Will he
	clarify what the criteria will be to determine whether someone has successfully completed that period of probation?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the big design challenges with which we have had to wrestle in designing this system. It is, of course, important that those providing rehabilitation services should be rewarded for a complete stop in someone’s offending. That is what the public are looking for here. However, we also want to make sure that there are no perverse incentives and that providers will continue to work with those who are difficult to manage and those whose lives are difficult to turn around. We will have a mechanism for payment by results that reflects not just a binary “did they stop offending altogether or did they not” measurement, but one of progress in respect of the number of times someone offends. By combining those two, we think we will get to the right measurement.

Employment of Ex-offenders

Oliver Colvile: What plans he has to assist ex-offenders into employment.

Steve Brine: What plans he has to assist ex-offenders into employment.

Chris Heaton-Harris: What plans he has to assist ex-offenders into employment.

Mary Macleod: What plans he has to assist ex-offenders into employment.

Jeremy Wright: We have already ensured that prison leavers aged over 18 who claim jobseeker’s allowance on release or shortly afterwards are referred to the Work programme immediately. We have also introduced work in prisons on a much larger scale than before, providing offenders with the real work experiences. Our transforming rehabilitation reforms will see new rehabilitation providers working to tackle the root causes of offending by using innovative approaches such as mentoring and by helping ex-offenders to find housing, training and employment.

Oliver Colvile: Will my hon. Friend tell me what happens to those offenders who are foreign nationals once they have completed their period in prison? Do we deport them and, if not, why not?

Jeremy Wright: We most certainly do seek to deport foreign national offenders, and my hon. Friend will be encouraged to learn that 4,500 or so were deported during the last year for which we have figures. However, we also think it important to remove such offenders while they are still serving their sentences if that is possible, which is why we seek to negotiate compulsory prisoner transfer agreements such as the one that we signed with Albania in January. We are working towards a similar arrangement with Nigeria. We want offenders to leave our shores, during the currency of their sentences
	if possible but otherwise immediately thereafter, because the right place for foreign criminals is not in our country but back in their own.

Steve Brine: What involvement does the Minister expect the voluntary and community sector to have, and how does he expect it to dovetail with the Work programme in helping ex-offenders to find stable jobs? More importantly, how does he expect it to work for the purpose of resettlement, which, as we know and as the Select Committee said in its report, plays a major role in diverting people from reoffending?

Jeremy Wright: As my hon. Friend says, and as the Select Committee has made clear, resettlement is hugely important. We agree that the voluntary and community sector can play a major role, and we think it important for that role to begin while offenders are still serving the custodial part of their sentences. The reforms that we have in mind will enable those who are dealing with rehabilitation to make contact with offenders early, and to see them through the prison gates and out into the community. One of the main ways in which we expect them to help offenders to go straight and stay straight is by finding jobs for them to do, for, as we know, keeping a job is one of the best ways of keeping out of crime.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Minister is doubtless aware of National Grid’s young offender programme, under which 80 companies are now delivering training and jobs to those who are heading towards release. Does not a reoffending rate of less than 7% suggest that private providers can play a big part in the rehabilitation revolution?

Jeremy Wright: I certainly think that it demonstrates that a range of different organisations have a significant part to play. I am familiar with what National Grid does, and I know that it does an extremely good job. One of the questions that it has raised with me is whether there are better ways of enabling it to work with offenders in a limited number of prisons. I think that the restructuring of the prison estate that we have in mind, which will ensure that prisoners can be released into the community from only a certain number of prisons, will help it to do even more good work along the lines that my hon. Friend has described.

Mary Macleod: How will the Minister engage ex-offenders in his plans for long-term mentoring even after they have found work? I believe that keeping a job and breaking the cycle of crime is essential to successful rehabilitation.

Jeremy Wright: I agree that mentoring is likely to play a significant part in what providers choose to do in order to turn lives around. I also agree that involving ex-offenders is a good way to start to find the mentors whom we will need. A great deal of very effective mentoring already takes place in prisons, with older and more established prisoners mentoring younger and newer ones. We want that to continue outside the prison gates, so that we can provide the kind of support that my hon. Friend has described.

Paul Goggins: Dealing with alcohol misuse and dependency is a major problem for many ex-offenders who need to find work.
	What discussions is the Minister having with the Department of Health, and indeed with those who are likely to provide probation services in the future, about improving alcohol treatment in prisons and after prisoners have been released?

Jeremy Wright: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a hugely important issue. Given his knowledge of the subject, he will recognise that a consistent approach is also important. As I said a moment ago, the work should start while prisoners are in custody and continue as they go through the prison gates and out into the community, so that supervision and support for those with drug or alcohol problems can be maintained throughout the process to ensure that they do not relapse and go back to their old ways. We will certainly think about how we can engage with not just health service providers but rehabilitation providers, and do so over a longer period.

Meg Munn: Offenders with drug addictions often lead very chaotic lives, and often relapse several times before they secure the help that will enable them to embark on the path towards more a normal lifestyle. They need a great deal of work over a long period, and they are often not directly ready even to start looking for a job. How will the Minister’s system of payment by results, and his efforts to get more offenders into work, take account of the work that will need to be done over, perhaps, a number of years?

Jeremy Wright: As the hon. Lady says, this is a difficult and faltering path for many people with serious drug addiction problems. The system that we are designing, however, is based on the central tenet that people should do what works to reduce reoffending, and that those who do so will be rewarded for it. If someone has a major drug problem, it will be necessary for providers to address that in order to ensure that that person does not reoffend. I am confident that they will focus on those issues, and will do what is necessary to turn people’s lives around. If what is necessary in the case of a particular individual is getting him off drugs and keeping him off them, I am sure that that is what they will do, but we will need to bring in a number of agencies to work with them.

Gregory Campbell: In Magilligan prison in my constituency there is a very good scheme preparing prisoners for the outside world and employment, and reducing reoffending rates. What measures can the Minister implement in conjunction with the devolved structures to ensure that such best practice is replicated across the entire United Kingdom?

Jeremy Wright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. He will know that I do not have direct responsibility for the prisons in Northern Ireland, but he makes a good point. There will be examples of good practice across other Administrations from which we can learn, and we will certainly seek to do so.

Jenny Chapman: Unfortunately, there is scant evidence in the recent inspection report on Serco and HMP Thameside of rehabilitation. Instead we hear of bad management, gang-related violence, and
	prisoners sleeping away the day spending up to 23 hours locked in their cells. We also now have irregularities in the tagging contracts and the sudden resignation of the G4S chief executive. Does the Minister not agree that this is more evidence of why we should be wary of rushing headlong into handing over our probation service to these same companies? A failure repeated outside the relative safety of prison walls would see dangerous offenders walking our streets completely unsupervised.

Jeremy Wright: I think that what there is good evidence of is the need for reform. We need to make sure more work on rehabilitation is going on within prisons, as well as more work through the gate and out into the community. As the hon. Lady well knows, the truth is that there are good and bad reports on private prisons, just as there are good and bad reports on public prisons. We will want to make sure that we do everything we can to engage in rehabilitation while people are in prison. More work in prison will certainly help: 800,000 more hours were worked in prisons last year than the year before. Progress is being made, but there is certainly more to do, hence our reforms, which I hope the hon. Lady will support.

Mr Speaker: We are immensely grateful to the Minister. I feel sure that the Government could with great advantage schedule at some point a full day’s debate on the subject.

Youth Justice and Criminal Justice Act 1999

Ann Coffey: What recent progress he has made on the implementation of section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Justice Act 1999.

Damian Green: The Ministry of Justice is actively looking at the practical issues around implementing section 28 of that Act. Putting victims and witnesses first must be a common goal for everyone working in the criminal justice system. That is why this work has involved us working closely with the judiciary, the police, the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service, and it should be completed shortly.

Ann Coffey: I thank the Minister for his response. One victim of child sexual exploitation was aggressively cross-examined by seven barristers for three weeks in the Telford trial. Another was repeatedly called a liar until she broke down. Justice is not served by bullying vulnerable witnesses already scarred by their experiences. When does the Minister expect to be able to report further on the implementation of section 28, which allows pre-recorded witness evidence and cross-examination outside court, making the trial process less of an ordeal for victims?

Damian Green: I know that the hon. Lady has a long and distinguished record of activity in this area, and I am not asking her to be patient for much longer. As I said in my initial answer, we should come to a decision shortly. This is the last of the Act’s measures to protect particularly vulnerable witnesses to be implemented. I entirely share her concern that, within the confines of having trials conducted properly, vulnerable witnesses should receive proper protection.

Robert Flello: We accept that section 28 is not easy to implement, but given the many recent appalling cases involving character assassination and the bullying of vulnerable witnesses, is it not now time to implement, as one measure, the approach proposed by many, including the Advocacy Training Council in its report “Raising the Bar”, of introducing compulsory training and certification for barristers in cases of this kind?

Damian Green: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying there are practical difficulties in implementing this. We are looking at a range of measures. He will be aware that our consultation on the victims’ code closed only a few days ago, and the Minister for victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), will be publishing a response this summer. Obviously, that must align with the witness charter as well. I hope all these things will come to fruition shortly.

Legal Aid

Mary Glindon: What the Government’s plans are for the future of legal aid.

Chris Grayling: We are consulting on proposed reforms of the legal aid system, as set out in our consultation document, “Transforming Legal Aid”, which was published on 9 April. We are seeking views on proposals to ensure that the criminal legal aid system in this country operates more efficiently, that we live within our means, and that we have a system in which the public can have confidence.

Mary Glindon: What steps is the Minister taking to make publicly available details of the amounts paid by the legal aid authorities to counsel and solicitors and the costs for the preparation of cases prosecuted each year?

Chris Grayling: That information is already available to a degree. It is available to hon. Members and has been published under the Freedom of Information Act. It is very important that at the same time as ensuring we have a proper legal aid system that provides access to justice to all, we ensure that the payments we make are payments we can afford.

Alan Beith: How can Ministers be confident that under their proposals there will be a genuine market and not just a few very large businesses that would have no great incentive to maintain quality once they got a fixed proportion of the business?

Chris Grayling: That is a very important point. First, I have absolutely no intention of ending up with a legal aid market dominated by a small number of very large firms. A central part of the tendering process will involve a quality threshold that ensures that we have the quality of advocacy and litigation support in this country that we need and expect.

Meg Hillier: The Secretary of State talked about the quality threshold, but his own Department’s consultation document
	warns against the danger that some advice might go above the quality threshold and therefore be too expensive. What does he have to say to that and how will he ensure that criminals get a proper defence?

Chris Grayling: We must ensure that every defendant, innocent or guilty, has access to a proper defence. We also need a system that is affordable at a time of great financial stringency. Our proposals are designed to find the right balance between those two things.

Robert Buckland: The current graduated fee system is clearly broken and is costing a huge amount of money to administer. Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at constructive proposals to streamline the system and improve the system of criminal fees?

Chris Grayling: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have been very clear in saying to both barristers and solicitors—to the whole legal profession—that this is a consultation. I have challenges to meet financially, but I am very open to means of improving the current system in a way that makes it affordable while maintaining the quality and effectiveness of provision.

John Cryer: Is it not the case that the Secretary of State intends to award legal aid franchises on the basis of price and not on anything else? That means that the lowest common denominator will prevail and one of the basic founding tenets of the legal aid system, equal access to justice, will be at an end.

Chris Grayling: No, it is not. I have no intention whatsoever of awarding contracts on the basis of price alone.

Sarah Teather: How will the Government ensure that the proposed residence test does not leave many victims of human trafficking, unaccompanied child immigrants and victims of domestic violence with no access to justice? Is there not a real danger that our attempts to look tough on immigration will leave many vulnerable people without the justice they deserve?

Chris Grayling: Under the new systems we have put in place, the Legal Aid Agency has discretionary funding to deal with the very unexpected cases. However, I do not think that it is unreasonable to say that if someone is going to come to this country and access public support, they should have been here for a period of time and paid taxes before they do so.

Robert Flello: More than 70% of the public, according to a poll in today’s papers, think that the Secretary of State’s cuts to criminal legal aid will lead to innocent people being convicted. Does he really think that miscarriages of justice are a price worth paying for his mismanagement of the justice budget?

Chris Grayling: I still do not think that the Opposition understand the nature of the financial mess they left behind and what we have to do to balance the books. I also think that the public would expect me to do what I
	can to maintain a strong prison system and a strong court system at the same time as having a legal aid system that provides justice while being affordable. That is what we are doing.

Firearms Offences

John Mann: How many prison staff have current unspent convictions for firearms offences.

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that over 45,000 personnel records are held by the National Offender Management Service and to determine firearms offences for all staff would involve extracting information from those files at disproportionate cost, but I can reassure him that all new recruits to the service undergo security vetting, and as part of this procedure, checks are made on criminal convictions. Any criminal conviction or caution received by staff or recruits is assessed carefully before a decision on recruitment or continued employment is made.

John Mann: Rebecca Knighton was sacked using fabricated evidence, Steve Casey resigned following the illegal use of CCTV, and now, I understand, a senior manager has been convicted of a firearms offence but not sacked. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the managerial chaos at Ranby prison?

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on the basis of what I know at present about the cases that he has raised, but I will certainly look into them and come back to him as to what we think can best be done.

Ex-service Personnel

David Anderson: What support he provides for ex-service personnel in the criminal justice system.

Damian Green: Depending on their individual risks and needs, offenders with a military history are eligible for the full range of NOMS interventions and offender services. Many prisons have a designated support officer for veterans in custody. Often these officers have served in the forces themselves, and they provide support tailored to the experiences that veterans may have had while on active service. Several probation trusts have an equivalent role for support in the community. The MOD has also made its veterans mental health services available to ex-service men and women in custody.

David Anderson: Since 2008, 300 veterans have gone through the veterans treatment court system in Buffalo, New York state. Not one has reoffended. That has been so successful that 103 similar courts have been set up across the USA. Will the Minister agree to meet me and others who support this process to see whether there are lessons that we can learn from the USA and adapt for this country?

Damian Green: I would be happy to do that. As I hope the hon. Gentleman will have seen this morning, we are very open to new ideas throughout the criminal justice system, and spreading best practice is the way to reduce reoffending and in this case to help veterans.

Tracey Crouch: The Minister, sadly, missed out on an excellent visit that the Secretary of State paid to my constituency recently, when he met offenders who were on the Royal British Legion Industries scheme; they had been through the criminal justice system and are now in work. Although it is essential that a cross-departmental approach is taken to help ex-service personnel re-integrate into society to stop them entering the criminal justice system, it is even more important to do so after they have been through it. What are the Government doing to raise awareness of the schemes that are out there to provide support and help?

Damian Green: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. As I said, spreading information about best practice is extremely important. That is the basis of many of the reforms that we are introducing through the criminal justice system. If she perceives an information gap somewhere, I will be happy to discuss this with the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who is the Minister with responsibility for veterans and who has significant overall responsibility in this area.

Reoffending

Yvonne Fovargue: What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.

Chris Grayling: We have heard a lot this afternoon about our plans for transforming rehabilitation. It is worth restating to the House what I believe is a crucial part of those reforms: the alignment of the prison service geographically to areas into which people are going to be released, through the creation of a network of resettlement prisons. I think that will make as big a difference to the process as any other part of our reforms.

Yvonne Fovargue: A recent report from the Charities Aid Foundation welcomed the opportunities that payment by results will create for the voluntary sector, but it also warned that many organisations will need support to ensure that they can become credible providers of services on a much larger scale. What help is the Minister putting in place to ease this transition?

Chris Grayling: We are doing two things. First, through the Cabinet Office, which has responsibility for liaison with the voluntary sector, we are putting in place widespread support to help the voluntary sector prepare for this process. We have also put in place a justice data lab, which is designed to allow smaller voluntary sector organisations that have a track record in working with offenders to quantify the impact of their work on rehabilitation so that they can sell a story about what they can do to partners in the bidding process.

Crispin Blunt: As one would expect, getting more work into prisons will make a considerable contribution to reducing reoffending. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the progress being made by one3one Solutions?

Chris Grayling: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he did as Justice Minister on improving the availability of work in prisons. It is to his credit that we saw an increase of 800,000 in the number of hours worked in our prisons last year. My hon. Friend the Prisons Minister is building on that work and it is my hope and expectation that we will see that increase continue.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will there be resettlement prisons for women?

Chris Grayling: There are of course a smaller number of women’s prisons, but it is our intention to have the same geographic links between detention and release for women as well.

Probation System

Laura Sandys: What recent progress he has made on reform of the probation system.

Jeremy Wright: As my hon. Friend knows, on 9 May we published our strategy for transforming rehabilitation. The reforms we set out in that strategy will see new market providers delivering rehabilitation services alongside a single national probation service from autumn 2014.

Laura Sandys: As the Minister knows, there is great concern in the North Thanet and South Thanet constituencies about people on probation being located next door to vulnerable people, and also people with criminal backgrounds. Is this the right location? Should there be more risk assessment of where people on probation are relocated with their rehabilitation programmes?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend knows that risk assessment is always taking place, and it is important that it does so. She knows also that we are looking carefully at the specific circumstances that she raises in the area that she represents, and we will come back to her as soon as we can draw some firmer conclusions.

Legal Aid

Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received on the reform of legal aid; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Grayling: My ministerial team and I have met with a number of stakeholders since the launch of our consultation on legal aid reform. Among others, I have met the chair of the Bar Council, the president of the Law Society, members of the senior judiciary, the circuit leaders and a number of solicitors representing Law Society members.

Anne McIntosh: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard the same concerns that I have about restricted access to justice. Having started out as a young advocate a number of years ago, may I say that
	there is real concern that there will be less access to the profession, particularly for young barristers, with lower fees while they are trying to pay off their student loans?

Chris Grayling: We have taken care with these proposals to put together a package based on our statistical analysis which we think will protect incomes at the lower end of the Bar particularly. It is my intention that where we have to impose changes on the profession, they come through either the reorganisation of businesses or income changes at the top end of the income scale.

Karl Turner: The Justice Secretary knows full well that his plans for price competitive tendering in criminal legal aid are completely opposed by the profession. They are unworkable. Will he now sit down with the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association and discuss a way forward out of this mess?

Chris Grayling: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the principle of price competitive tendering was first proposed in a report commissioned by the last Government eight years ago. We have looked carefully at the best way in which we can deliver better value in our legal aid system, which we have to do to meet financial targets. We will do so in a way that protects the interests of the justice system, but no change is simply not an option.

Julian Huppert: I understand the drive to try to save money in this area, but the Justice Secretary will be aware of many of the concerns. Will he look carefully at ideas that have been raised with him such as making more use of frozen assets to pay for cases or dealing with fraud cases more efficiently, to try to reduce the legal aid bill in that way?

Chris Grayling: I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says on frozen assets. Of course, they are already used to fund police, the Crown Prosecution Service and victims’ services, so this is not an untouched resource. In the Crime and Courts Act 2013, we have taken powers to extend the use of frozen assets, but I do not believe that the amounts of money available are sufficient to make a material difference to our proposals.

William McCrea: What recent representations has the Secretary of State had from the Department and Minister of Justice in the Northern Ireland Assembly concerning the reform of legal aid?

Chris Grayling: I am not aware that I have received a letter concerning that. I obviously have regular meetings and exchanges with the Northern Ireland Minister. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman if I have received such a representation; I am not aware of having seen it.

Andrew McDonald: Is not a defendant’s freedom and ability to instruct a solicitor of their own choosing the fundamental basis of our criminal justice system? Will not these proposals restrict the numbers of corporate entities, with vested interests and conflicts of interests, running prisons, probation services and representing defendants? And if Eddie Stobart gets a contract, why do not the Government go the whole hog, put the magistrates court in the back of the wagon and be done with it?

Chris Grayling: I am afraid that that contribution is what I would expect from the Labour party. This is not about creating an opportunity for giant firms. It is about saying to small and medium-sized firms, “You will need to change the way you do things to bring down costs, to share back offices, in a way that enables us to get better value for money for the taxpayer.” If Opposition Members really want me to place financial constraints elsewhere in the system, to close courts and to have fewer probation officers, rather than having a more efficient criminal justice system in the legal aid arena, that is their choice. I know which route I am taking.

Drug Addiction in Prisons

Dominic Raab: What steps he is taking to reduce drug addiction in prisons.

Jeremy Wright: The Government are committed to helping prisoners with a drug dependency to live drug-free lives. We are working with health services to reshape drug treatment in prisons, establish wings in prisons that focus on recovery and abstinence, and connect offenders with community drug recovery services in custody and on release. We are also keen to use our new reforms, particularly the through-the-gate provision and the reconfiguration of the prison estate, to build on that collaboration.

Dominic Raab: I thank the Minister for that answer. The Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners Trust estimates that if just 10% of drug-addicted prisoners received abstinence-based rehabilitation, we might be able to save almost half a billion pounds a year. What progress has been made on replacing methadone prescriptions with abstinence programmes in our jails?

Jeremy Wright: I entirely agree that we need to see more abstinence from drugs. My hon. Friend will know that one of the obstacles to proceeding down that path with many drug-addicted offenders is that they stay in prison for a very short period and there is no confidence about what happens when they leave custody. [Interruption.] Our through-the-gate reforms mean that we will be able to move more offenders on to that pathway much more quickly and be confident that they will be supported when they leave custody.

Mr Speaker: We all heard the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) say, “Lock ’em up for longer”. If he was worried that his tone was untypically muted, his worry was groundless.

Victims of Crime

Stella Creasy: What the Government’s strategy is for victims of crime.

Helen Grant: For many years victims have felt overlooked and completely unsupported by the criminal justice system. The Government are determined to put that right, which is why we are implementing a range of
	reforms that will put victims at the very heart of the criminal justice system, which we say is where they belong.

Stella Creasy: Today we will hear more about the tragic case of Maria Stubbings and how she was dealt with as a victim of domestic violence. Ministers have acknowledged that delays in our courts system disproportionately affect victims of sexual violence. Will they acknowledge that too many female victims in Britain get a raw deal in our criminal justice system, and what do they intend to do about it?

Helen Grant: I categorically do not agree with what the hon. Lady has said. The Government are absolutely committed to tackling domestic violence and violence against women and girls. We have set up a national taskforce, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, to protect children and vulnerable people from sexual violence. We have also opted into the EU directive on combating child sexual exploitation and will continue to do everything we possibly can to ensure that vulnerable people are protected from the devastating crimes that can do serious long-term harm.

Topical Questions

Grahame Morris: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Chris Grayling: I would like briefly to update the House on our proposed changes to the regime in our prisons. I think that the public rightly expect that prisons should be a place of punishment and rehabilitation. For too long prisoners have been handed privileges such as in-cell television, DVDs and association time as a reward for simply keeping out of trouble. That is not just unfair at a time when the rest of the country is doing without; it is a shamefully wasted opportunity. That is why we have announced a major overhaul of our incentives and earned privileges schemes in prisons. We want to see prisoners earning their privileges by working hard to turn their lives around. We have banned certificate-18 DVDs, subscription TV will be removed by the summer, prisoners will in future have a longer working day, and if they behave badly or do not engage with rehabilitation activities they will be stripped of their privileges. That is designed to improve confidence in our prison regime and to encourage positive rehabilitation activities within our prisons.

Grahame Morris: I would like to ask the Secretary of State about his plans to privatise the probation service. Following the Olympics security debacle, why does he believe that companies such as G4S are suitable providers to manage low and medium-risk offenders, including prolific burglars, drug-users and those convicted for domestic violence, if they could not manage Olympic security? How will he guarantee public safety?

Chris Grayling: What I want for our probation service is the best of the public, private and voluntary sectors: the public sector has high-quality skills in managing the risk of harm; the private sector can deliver a more
	efficient system, so that we can release funds to support those offenders who get no support at the moment; and the voluntary sector has the kind of mentoring skills we so desperately need to help people turn their lives around.

David Mowat: Our criminal justice system may be the most expensive in the world, perhaps by a factor of two or three times, and yet we continue, as a state, to pay many practitioners several hundreds of thousand pounds a year more than we pay surgeons or scientists. This practice is of course enthusiastically supported by the Bar Council, and apparently by Opposition Front Benchers. Can the Secretary of State confirm that his consultation will at last bring to bear competition and market forces?

Chris Grayling: It certainly brings competition to bear. We are trying to take tough decisions on legal aid in a way that, where possible, impacts on the top end, not the bottom end, of the income scale. That is what we believe in, and I am surprised that Labour Members appear to disagree with us.

Andy Slaughter: Has the Secretary of State read his interview with the Law Society Gazette this week? I would not blame him if he had not, because it is a bit of a car crash. Does he stand by the passages where he says that he has no evidence of a lack of public support for legal aid but has received “lots of letters”, where he is “unsure” where £160 million of Department spending has gone, and where he defends taking away a choice of solicitor because
	“people in our prisons and…courts come from the most difficult and challenged backgrounds”
	and are not
	“great connoisseurs of legal skills”?

Chris Grayling: Not surprisingly, I do stand by interviews I give. We are now three years into this Government and Labour Members have no answers to any of the challenges we face. We have big financial issues to deal with and we need to create a system that is affordable. They have no alternative suggestions about how to do that.

Andy Slaughter: The Justice Secretary has one answer: payment by results.
	Last Friday, the Justice Secretary was forced to investigate alleged overpayment to G4S and Serco on the tagging contracts. Today the Financial Times is reporting that he has suspended outsourcing prison contracts to Serco, Sodexo and Amec. Should not he review all current contracts with the chumocracy of private firms who get the MOJ’s shilling, including Capita’s disastrous running of the interpreters contract, and should not he suspend plans to hand out another £500 million of probation contracts to more of the cosy cartel?

Chris Grayling: Sometimes Labour Members are breathtaking. I am not going to say much to the House today about the investigation that we are carrying out into the tagging contracts; I will provide that information in due course. I simply say to Opposition Front Benchers that the contracts we are investigating date back to 2005 and were signed and put together by the previous Government.

Mark Spencer: . What can the Secretary of State do the reverse the increase in the compensation culture in the UK?

Helen Grant: Our whiplash consultation closed on 8 March. We looked into the use of independent medical review panels and increasing the small claims compensation threshold. A response to the Government’s consultation will be published in autumn this year after the Transport Committee’s inquiry into whiplash.

Mary Glindon: What plans does the Minister have to monitor the banning of referral fees in personal injury matters and to review the payment of referral fees in conveyancing?

Chris Grayling: We have already introduced changes that ban referral fees, and we are looking at other reforms that will tighten up the whole culture that exists around personal injury and similar claims. There is good work in parts of the legal profession in doing genuine work on behalf of genuine claims. However, there are too many question marks in the system. Now that we have made those changes, the challenge is for the insurance industry to bring down policy prices. If it does not do that, we will not hesitate to take action in the other direction.

Andrew Selous: I strongly back the Government’s plans to get prisoners to do a full day’s work, but how can we make sure that they do not undercut the jobs of other UK workers whose businesses have higher costs than businesses in prisons?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is a balance to be struck in this respect. We want more prisoners to be working, but we also want to make sure that jobs outside prisons are not unfairly undercut. That is why, as he knows, we have a code of practice that we have recently strengthened to ensure that that does not happen and that, where we can, we bring work in from abroad to be done in our prisons or use work in prison to support contracts that provide work outside the prison gate.

William Bain: Our criminal justice system is strengthened in its ability to deal with international crime through our co-operation in the EU’s justice and home affairs policies. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is another powerful reason why we should remain a full member state of the EU?

Chris Grayling: I believe that we should co-operate fully internationally, not simply in the European Union, but elsewhere, to combat international crime. I do not want this country to become part of a European justice system. That is what divides us.

Philip Davies: Chris Huhne and his former wife were released from prison recently after serving just two months of an eight-month sentence. In surveys that I have conducted, an overwhelming majority
	of my constituents believe that prisoners should serve their sentences in full. Aside from locking them up for longer, Mr Speaker, will the Secretary of State say how long he thinks people should serve in prison before they are released?

Chris Grayling: On this matter, I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. He may have sensed from my recent comments that I am looking closely at this area. I hope to be able to provide further reassurances to him in due course.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he and the Government have no plans to withdraw from the European convention on human rights?

Chris Grayling: It is not the policy of the coalition Government to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. My party is looking at what proposals we want to put to the country at the next general election. The vast majority of the population want changes to our human rights framework. If the Labour party disagrees, I look forward to having that debate.

Henry Bellingham: Further to the Secretary of State’s statement about prisons at the start of topical questions, does he agree that far too many drugs are still circulating in prisons? How far is he getting with his zero-tolerance policy, which is aimed at staff and visitors because the drugs are not coming into prisons with the prisoners?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend is right that too many drugs are still coming into prisons, but he will be reassured to know that the rate of positive drug tests is coming down. As he will know, we must also tackle the misuse of prescription medication in jails. We are addressing all those problems to the best of our ability and will continue to do so.

Lilian Greenwood: There are some excellent local voluntary sector organisations that have valuable experience of working with offenders. How will Ministers ensure that small organisations with expertise are not shut out from rehabilitation work, while a handful of large private sector companies with little experience but deep pockets stitch it up?

Jeremy Wright: The answer to the hon. Lady’s question has two parts. First, when we assess the bids for rehabilitation work, the bidders must demonstrate that they will support smaller organisations to carry out the work with them. Secondly, there must be contract management to ensure that as the contracts proceed, the smaller organisations are looked after and have a sustainable future. We will do both those things.

Jane Ellison: In common, I am sure, with colleagues across the House, I am dealing with the case of a chaotic, long-term drug addicted prisoner who has been in and out of the revolving door of prison. I could not be more supportive of the Government’s rehabilitation revolution. However, before anybody will take that person on, he has to demonstrate behaviour that, being chaotic and addicted, it is very
	hard for him to demonstrate. It seems to me that that is a small gap in the new arrangements. Will the Minister meet me to talk about how we can bridge that gap and get people to the stage where they can take advantage of the new arrangements?

Jeremy Wright: I am very happy to discuss that matter further with my hon. Friend. I hope that she will be reassured that all offenders who leave custody or receive a community order will be allocated to a provider and will be expected to undergo whatever rehabilitation is appropriate.

Paul Goggins: I welcome the extension of supervision to short-term prisoners, but I am concerned that Ministers continue to refuse to give an estimated additional cost for that provision, claiming that it depends on competition. Ministers must have made an estimate for the fixed fee that will be paid up front before any bonus for success. Will the Minister say what the fixed fee is likely to cost?

Jeremy Wright: I understand why the right hon. Gentleman finds our position frustrating, but we cannot give a specific figure because it depends entirely on what price the bidders tell us they can do it for. I can tell him that the cost of providing for the additional 50,000 offenders will be covered by the savings that we make through competition. Opposition Members who dislike the idea of competition in this field must tell us whether they support the extension of the provision to short-term offenders. If they would not pay for it through competition, how would they pay for it?

Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what he considers to be the most intolerable aspects of the United Kingdom’s current relationship with the European Union?

Chris Grayling: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I remind the Secretary of State that answers to topical questions must be brief?

Chris Grayling: Given that I do not have the time at the Dispatch Box that I might choose to discuss the matter, I would simply say that the European Commission’s recent decision to publish a justice scorecard assessing justice systems across Europe, and making recommendations for their improvement, is one that this country neither welcomes nor intends to co-operate with.

Luciana Berger: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact on miscarriages of justice of his proposals on criminal legal aid?

Chris Grayling: I am very confident that what we are doing, which involves encouraging the litigation part of our system to operate more efficiently and making changes to the top end of the income scale for the Bar, but also protecting incomes for the junior Bar, will be the best way of delivering an effective balance between proper justice and something that is affordable to the taxpayer.

Philip Hollobone: What is the latest number of foreign national offenders in our prisons, and what progress is being made on sending them back to secure detention in their own countries?

Jeremy Wright: Off the top of my head I think there are about 10,300 in our prisons at the moment. We are making progress, as I explained earlier, not only with individual compulsory prisoner transfer agreements such as the one that we have already negotiated with Albania, but with more effective use of the European Union prisoner transfer agreement. Something like 200 cases under that agreement are currently being considered for deportation by the Home Office.

Catherine McKinnell: A Bar Council and ComRes poll published this morning shows that more than 70% of the British public are concerned that the legal aid cuts will result in injustice, and lawyers in Newcastle believe that they will increase costs to the taxpayer. Will the Secretary of State meet me and a delegation from Newcastle to listen to concerns on that vital issue?

Chris Grayling: I have already met a number of lawyers from the north-east and Newcastle, and I will listen to all the representations that I receive to try to get this as right as I possibly can. However, the hon. Lady should not believe, and no one in the House should believe, that the Administration can avoid difficult financial decisions. I am trying to take those decisions in the way that provides the best balance between justice and value for the taxpayer, and that is what I will continue to do.

Julian Huppert: There seem to be ways of both making substantial savings and providing a better service and improving the way in which the courts operate, particularly by using more digital information so that documents do not get lost and fail to arrive in court at the correct time. What work has the Ministry of Justice been doing to try to achieve that?

Damian Green: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that the digitisation of the whole criminal justice process, not just in the courts but including the police, is absolutely essential to ensuring not only that we continue to provide proper justice but that we do so more speedily and efficiently. A huge amount of work is going on inside the Department, and announcements will be made.

Seema Malhotra: The Ministry of Justice estimates that approximately 60% to 90% of young offenders have communication needs. What is it doing to increase speech and language therapy services in young offenders institutions?

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is a significant problem among young offenders both inside and outside custody. She may know that the comprehensive health assessment tool is currently used to identify those problems as early as we can, so that we can do something about them. As she knows, we believe that it is important to have a greater focus on education for all young offenders in how we structure the secure
	custodial estate for young offenders, and we are looking at that carefully having just closed a consultation on it.

Tracey Crouch: Will the Secretary of State update the House on progress towards criminalising squatting in commercial premises?

Chris Grayling: We are looking seriously at the matter, which is one for Members of all parties to consider. If any hon. Member has experience of it in their constituency, we would like to hear about it, including the impact that it has had on businesses. We in the House have perhaps more awareness than anybody else about what is happening on the ground, and I would like to hear from hon. Members about it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I was going to call the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), but she has been perambulating around the Chamber and I had lost sight of her. If she wishes to ask a question, her time is now.

Debbie Abrahams: I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I was going to ask the Secretary of State about legal aid. A vulnerable constituent of mine was charged on four separate occasions, and her solicitor, whom she appointed, was able to
	support her throughout. That ability is under threat from the legal aid proposals. Why is the Secretary of State proposing restrictions on access to legal aid for the vulnerable and those who cannot afford to pay?

Chris Grayling: I am not proposing that access to legal aid for the vulnerable be removed. Every person brought before a court or into a police station, and every person charged with an offence, will have access to legal aid for a defence unless they have sufficient means to pay for it themselves.

David Hanson: Given that a third of prison suicides take place in the first week, what risk assessment have the Government made of the changes to the regime in the first two weeks?

Jeremy Wright: As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his previous ministerial experience, risk assessments are made for every prisoner when they arrive in prison. The changes we have announced to the prison regime are about ensuring that prisoners understand at the earliest possible stage that if they comply with the regime and engage with rehabilitation, they will be able to earn privileges. If they do not, they will not, but that does not affect the risk assessment process. I also point out that where there are exceptional reasons due to a particular vulnerability, governors have discretion not to apply those provisions.

A and E Departments

Andy Burnham: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on what evidence he has to show how his plans to change GP services will solve the current crisis in accident and emergency departments.

Jeremy Hunt: A and E departments are under great pressure, and the whole House will want to pay tribute to the thousands of doctors, nurses and health care assistants who work extraordinary hours in very challenging conditions. They are there for us when we need them, and we owe them a great debt.
	More than 1 million more people visit A and E every year compared with just three years ago—those are additional numbers—and the simple fact is that if growth continues at that rate it will be unsustainable. It also means that when there are short-term pressures on the system, such as a very cold winter, teething problems with NHS 111 or bank holidays, the system cannot cope as well as it needs to and the quality of care is affected.
	Let us be clear: A and Es are currently hitting the 95% target. The latest figures show that 96.3% of patients are seen within four hours, and people are waiting on average 55 minutes for treatment. However, if A and E services are to be sustainable, we need both short-term and long-term measures to address the underlying causes of the pressure they are under.
	Last week, NHS England announced that it would change the basis on which tariff money for certain A and E cases is spent. For the first time, hospitals will have a say in how money is spent to alleviate demand when that money is withheld for numbers exceeding the 2009 baseline. We also need to address more fundamental issues, which is why I announced to the House on 13 May that the Government will publish in the autumn a vulnerable older people’s plan that will tackle those long-term underlying causes of pressure in our A and Es, particularly for the frail elderly who are the heart of many of the issues we face in both quality of care and service performance.
	The changes the Labour Government made to the GP contract took responsibility for out-of-hours care away from GPs. [[Interruption.] Labour Members may not like to hear the facts about the consequences of those changes, but let us go through them—they asked the question. Since those changes, 90% of GPs have opted out of providing out-of-hours care, and they got a pay rise in addition. As a result of those disastrous changes to the GP contract, we have seen a significant rise in attendances at A and E—4 million more people are using A and E every year than when the contract was changed. As researchers from the university of Nottingham found, to give just one example, a reduction in out-of-hours services provided by patients’ usual family doctors is a direct cause of increased A and E attendance by children.
	There are other issues too, including the lack of integration with social care, and vulnerable patients being discharged from hospital with no one co-ordinating proper health and social care to support them in their own homes.
	That lack of integration was something else that the previous Government failed to address over 13 long years.
	Then there are the problems inside A and E departments caused by the disastrous failure of Labour’s IT contract. When people are admitted to A and E departments, the departments are unable to see their medical records, which could have an enormous impact—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. First of all, the Secretary of State should not have to shout to be heard. Secondly, the more heckling there is, the slower progress tends to be. I want to accommodate colleagues, but as a matter both of courtesy and of practicality the Secretary of State should be heard in silence.

Jeremy Hunt: We will address those problems inside A and Es and the system-wide issues. It is not all about the GP contract, but that is a significant part of it, because confidence in primary care alternatives is a key driver in decisions on whether to go to A and E. We will take responsibility for sorting out those problems, but the Labour party must take responsibility for creating a number of them.

Andy Burnham: The Secretary of State could brief the newspapers last night, but he could not give a straight answer to my question today. He has not outlined his plans to change GP services.
	The facts are that A and Es are under severe pressure and people are waiting hours on trolleys in corridors or in the back of queuing ambulances to be seen. Last week, a third of major A and Es missed the Government’s lowered targets—some were seriously adrift. At University Hospitals of Leicester, 78% of patients were seen within four hours. Seventy-nine per cent. of patients were seen within four hours in Portsmouth. Things have taken a more serious turn today, with news that 20 senior A and E doctors say they are unable to guarantee patient safety.
	For weeks, the Opposition have warned the Secretary of State to get a grip. His only substantive response was to tour the TV studios to blame the 2004 GP contract. We today read that his answer is yet another costly NHS reorganisation, this time of GP services. Where is the evidence to support his contention that that will solve the A and E crisis? Why did he not outline his plans to the House—he has already given the news to newspapers?
	This morning, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation told the Select Committee on Health that there is no link between today’s pressures on A and E and the 2004 contract, echoing expert analysis from the King’s Fund. If the GP contract is the root cause, as the Secretary of State claims, will he explain why 98% of people were seen within four hours in 2009, five years after the contract was signed? That figure has deteriorated sharply under his Government, and mainly on his watch. Major A and Es have missed the target in 33 of the 35 weeks when he has been Health Secretary. His complacency is dangerous. Is it not time he stopped blaming GPs to divert attention from a mess of the Government’s own making and addressed the real causes?
	Two weeks ago, NHS England told the Secretary of State what those causes were. He needs to provide convincing answers on each. What steps is he taking to
	prevent the collapse of adult social care in England? What is he doing to ensure that all A and Es in England have enough doctors and nurses to provide safe care? Will he update the House on the status of his plans to cobble together a £400 million A and E crisis fund, news of which was leaked a fortnight ago? Will he halt the closure of NHS walk-in centres and personally review all planned A and E closures? What is he doing to sort of the failing 111 service? Did he not speed up implementation against official advice?
	The truth is that this is a mess of the Government’s own making. It will not be solved by the Secretary of State’s spin or by blaming GPs. He has been found playing politics when he should be dealing with the real causes of today’s chaos. Faced with a real crisis, he has been found wanting. He needs to cut the spin and get a grip.

Jeremy Hunt: What the right hon. Gentleman says would have some credibility if he looked at the facts. Fact: under this Government, we hit the A and E target for last year. Fact: Wales, where Labour is in control, has not hit the A and E target since 2009.

Andy Burnham: Forget Wales!

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman says, “Forget Wales,” but why has he never once been prepared to condemn the appalling failures in A and E in Wales, caused by the Welsh Labour Government’s decision to cut NHS spending by 8%? What he says would have some credibility were he at least prepared to condemn what has happened in Wales, but he never does.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks for the evidence, and I will tell him. Patrick Cadigan of the Royal College of Physicians says that the pressures on A and E are caused because many people assume that, after 5 pm, the lights in the NHS go out everywhere except A and E departments—a direct consequence of those disastrous 2004 changes to the contract. Nottingham university conducted an independent study, and last year’s GP patient survey found that only 58% of patients know how to contact their local out-of-hours service, 20% find it difficult to contact their out-of-hours service, and 37% feel that the service is too slow—problems that we are trying to address. Perhaps he should visit some A and E departments and talk to consultants, doctors and nurses, because they will tell him that the changes to the GP contract, which he says have nothing to do with the pressures on A and E, have had a huge and devastating impact.
	He talks about taking responsibility for these problems. Let us see if he is prepared to take responsibility. Is he prepared to take responsibility for the target-at-any-cost culture in some parts of the NHS under Labour, which led to the disaster of Mid-Staffs? Is he prepared to take responsibility for the IT failures that mean that A and E departments cannot access GP records? Will he nod his head if he is prepared to take responsibility? [Interruption.] He is not prepared. Is he prepared to take responsibility—

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us get this back on track. There are two very simple points: first, those on the Opposition Front Bench should not be yelling at the
	Secretary of State; secondly, for the avoidance of doubt, the responsibility of the Secretary of State is to answer questions, not ask them.

Jeremy Hunt: I was answering, in a questioning way, the issue of—

Mr Speaker: Order. I have told the Secretary of State what the position is. It is not for argument or debate. His responsibility is to get on with answering in the way the House of Commons expects.

Jeremy Hunt: And I would always seek to do so, Mr Speaker.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman constantly seeks to run down the performance of the NHS. Where is the recognition of the outstanding performance of the NHS under this Government: the fact that under this Government 400,000 more operations are happening every year than under Labour; the fact that the number of people waiting for more than a year for an operation has gone down from 18,000 under Labour to less than 1,000 under this Government; the fact that MSRA rates have been halved; and the fact that mixed-sex wards have nearly been eliminated? We will stick up for the great achievements of our NHS and we will not allow people to run it down. However, we will also tackle problems honestly and ensure that we address crises, many of which were caused by the previous Government.

Stephen Dorrell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that patients seeking urgent care will go to that part of the health service where the lights are on, and that the failure of the Opposition, over 13 years, to create genuinely integrated emergency care is the fruit we are now harvesting?

Jeremy Hunt: As ever, my right hon. Friend speaks with great wisdom. When it comes to the frail elderly, the key is to have a system that heads off problems before they arrive so that people do not find that they end up having to be rushed into A and E in the middle of the night. That can often be the very worst place for someone with advanced dementia or any condition that makes them extremely fragile and vulnerable. We need to integrate systems properly, and that did not happen under the previous Government. One of the key work streams of the vulnerable older people’s plan will be to look at barriers to integration, particularly the barriers to joint commissioning of social care and health. We intend to make good progress on that front.

Frank Dobson: Does the Secretary of State accept that when NHS Direct was operating, nurses had the professional competence to decide not to refer people to A and E, and to provide reassuring advice? They have been replaced by call handlers who, understandably, opt to send people to A and E because they have neither the professional competence nor the professional confidence to do anything else?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree that there have been teething problems with 111 and we are addressing those problems. [Hon. Members: “ Teething problems?”] There is laughter on the Opposition Benches. We are hitting our A and E targets at the moment, and 111 is available in more than
	90% of the country. We are dealing with those teething issues, but I take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s point. The 111 service needs to be quicker at getting advice to people from a GP or a nurse. The fundamental issue with 111 is that giving the public an easy number to remember has highlighted how inaccessible GP out-of-hours services have become. We have to address that if we are to restore public confidence in 111.

Sarah Wollaston: If someone cannot get an appointment with their family doctor, they are undoubtedly more likely to end up in A and E, but does the Secretary of State agree that we will not increase capacity in primary care unless we address the work force shortage in general practice and broaden the skill mix of those who can see people in primary care?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. Under this Government, we have 6,000 more doctors than we had under Labour, but we need more people going into general practice as well. [Interruption.] Yes, the training might have started under the Labour Government, but the funding happened under this Government, and it would not be possible if we cut the budget, which is what the Labour party still wants to do. She is right to point out those issues, however. One way of making general practice more attractive is to restore the personal link between GPs and the people on their list and a sense of personal responsibility and accountability. We need to find the right way of doing that, given the pressures on general practice at the moment, and I hope to work with her and many others to do that.

John Denham: May I tell this complacent Secretary of State that in 28 out of the last 30 weeks Southampton general hospital has missed the waiting time A and E target? In the week beginning 7 April, only six out of 10 patients were seen within four hours. It is clear that this is a crisis of the whole health system. Given that in the last six months his own specialist advisers have praised the Southampton health economy for the role that primary care has played in reducing pressures on A and E, will he think again before simply blaming one group of doctors for a problem that runs right through the health system and into social care?

Jeremy Hunt: I am not blaming any doctors; I am blaming the Labour party for making disastrous decisions in office. We are addressing the issues that his party failed to address. If Southampton is not meeting its A and E targets, that is unacceptable. We are talking to all the hospitals struggling to meet those targets, but they all say—I am sure that people in Southampton would say this as well—that we need to look at the fundamental issues, which are barriers between the health and social care systems, poor primary care alternatives and problems inside hospitals with how A and E is handled. We are addressing all those issues.

John Pugh: Better co-ordination of ambulance trusts and A and E departments is essential, but it will not happen by accident. Are we not now missing the strategic health authorities, given that ambulances are being sent to units already working at full capacity?

Jeremy Hunt: By getting rid of the layers of bureaucracy we had with strategic health authorities and primary care trusts—a brave and important decision made by my predecessor—we have been able to invest in more front-line staff. The NHS is doing much more, in terms of the number of operations, outpatient appointments and people being seen by A and E, because we are investing in the front line, but it is the responsibility of the new clinical commissioning groups to ensure proper co-ordination, and I would expect them to do that.

Kevin Barron: The Secretary of State attributes the current crisis in A and E in part to a contract that doctors signed back in 2004 and the fact that large parts of the NHS turn off the lights at 5 pm or 6 pm, which they have done for 60 years. Is there anything for which this Government have been responsible in the NHS since 2010?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, we have been responsible for a huge increase in performance, many more people being operated on, the virtual elimination of mixed-sex wards, MRSA rates being halved, more operations than ever before, more outpatient operations than ever before and more GP appointments than ever before.

Phillip Lee: I am struck by the fact that no mention has yet been made of the drivers of the reported chaos in A and E and the pressures on primary care out of hours. What of ageing? What of obesity? What of the changes in behaviour, the absence of stoicism, the increase in medical technology costs? Whatever the system that either the Government or the Opposition talk about, it will come under pressure. When will we have some reality in this Chamber about the causes of this problem, because the sooner we have, the better we will all be?

Jeremy Hunt: I recognise my hon. Friend’s clinical background. When I talk to clinicians in A and E wards, they tell me that the long-term drivers of the pressures they are under are an increase in the number of older people and an increase in the acuteness of the conditions of people coming through the doors. That is why at the heart of our long-term solution is a vulnerable older people’s plan that ensures we look after them with the dignity, compassion and respect they deserve.

Meg Munn: Why does the Secretary of State not increase access to primary care during normal working hours by reintroducing the requirement on primary care services to see patients within 48 hours, as happened under the Labour Government?

Jeremy Hunt: That target led to many problems, as the hon. Lady well knows. She might remember, from the 2005 general election campaign, the issues of people being denied appointments for three, four or five days because GP surgeries were being paid to meet specific 48-hour appointments. That is one issue. Too often, if people call GPs for an appointment, they are told that the earliest they can have one is in two, three or four weeks, which makes them think, “What are my alternatives?” and leads them into A and E. We must
	think about how we can change that and alter the incentives in GP contracts so that they can give the kind of service to their lists they would like to.

Bernard Jenkin: Do I need to remind my right hon. Friend that the outgoing Labour Government in 2010 left a note on the desk of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying, “There’s no money left”? Is not the challenge the need to make the NHS work on more or less flat funding—though we are doing our best to increase it—while dealing with huge increases in demand? Is not the only answer to do more in the general practice setting, where it can be done more responsibly, more local to patients’ needs and more cheaply, in order to take the pressure off A and E services?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend speaks extremely wisely. We must do just that, particularly for the frail elderly, people with long-term complex conditions, because they are the people for whom an A and E department can be a bewildering place, especially if it knows nothing about them and cannot access their medical records. Prevention is far better than cure, and I agree that that is one way of doing it.

Stephen Pound: The Secretary of State advises us to visit A and E departments. Were he to visit the one in the excellent Ealing hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), he would see the grotesque, confusing and expensive sight of a spatchcocked urgent care centre next to an A and E department, one acting as a gateway for the other. It is confusing, divisive and expensive. Is he entirely comfortable with this concept?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We have failed as an NHS to give the public confidence in there being anything between an A and E department and a GP surgery. Whether they are urgent care centres or other centres, the public do not have that confidence and do not understand their role. We need other things, besides those two extremes, and to do a better job of informing the public about how they work. That is part of the reason for reforming primary care.

Gerald Howarth: May I invite my right hon. Friend to visit Frimley Park hospital, which serves his constituents and mine? I went there on Friday and saw the magnificent new A and E facilities in which it has invested. Yes, it has been under pressure in the past year or so, but it has managed and the out-of-hours service is being provided by GPs. I encourage him to come and see what a magnificent service is provided. Its excellent chief executive, Andrew Morris, raised with me the question of the tariff. Will my right hon. Friend explain a bit more his proposals to recompense hospitals such as Frimley Park, which are doing a fantastic job in A and E, for the additional burden they have had to assume?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend: Frimley Park is a terrific hospital and Andrew Morris a first-class chief executive. In fact, I am visiting Frimley Park in the next month and I will certainly have that discussion
	with him. My hon. Friend is right that one issue that A and E departments frequently raise is the tariff and the fact that they get paid only 30% of it for any A and E admissions over the 2009 baseline. That was why NHS England announced an important change a few weeks ago. Previously, hospitals had no say over how the money that is withheld from them is spent—it is meant to be used to reduce demand. We are now setting up urgent care boards, and hospitals will have a seat round the table to ensure that the money is spent in a way that reduces pressures on their A and E departments.

Siobhain McDonagh: Can the Secretary of State say how the numbers attending A and E in south-west London will be reduced by the closure of St Helier hospital’s A and E department, which saw 80,000 people last year?

Jeremy Hunt: I have not seen any plans for the closure of St Helier. I know that NHS London is looking at possibilities to improve services in those areas, but, as the hon. Lady will know and should take comfort from, if a major reconfiguration is proposed and then referred to the Secretary of State by the local overview and scrutiny committee, I will not approve the change unless I am convinced that it will improve patient care.

David Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could make better use of the ambulance service and that if we had more fully trained ambulance men who could assess whether a patient needed to go to hospital, we could reduce A and E admissions that way?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the importance of the ambulance service, which is also feeling the pressure on A and E departments. We need to help the ambulance service to do its job better too. One thing that it always strikes me would make a huge difference to ambulance services is if staff could access the GP records of someone they were picking up on a 999 call, so that they would know that the patient was a diabetic with mild dementia and a heart condition, for instance. That kind of information can be incredibly helpful. I hope that by sorting out the IT issues with which the last Government struggled, we can help ambulance services to do that.

Valerie Vaz: The Select Committee on Health heard evidence today from the College of Emergency Medicine about a 50% shortfall in trainee doctors and consultants. On average, trusts—I was going to say PCTs—spend £500,000 on locums. What does the Secretary of State intend to do about that?

Jeremy Hunt: We certainly intend to address A and E departments’ recruitment issues, which I recognise are one of the causes of the pressure. Over-reliance on locum doctors is not a long-term solution to improving the performance of A and E departments either, so those are both areas that we will be looking at.

Andrew George: The Government—Governments generally—cannot legislate to predict or control accidents or genuine emergencies, but they can direct resources. Hospital bed numbers have been cut by about 30% in the last 10 years. Does my right hon.
	Friend agree that it is difficult for A and E departments to function effectively if they do not have adequate bed capacity behind them?

Jeremy Hunt: I do agree, but what hospitals say is that the issue is not the number of beds, but the people in them who are not being properly discharged into the social care system. I was at King’s College hospital last week, where I was told that the hospital had probably two wards full of people who could be discharged into the social care system but had not been. Breaking down those barriers—something that I am afraid the last Government did not get round to doing in 13 years—will be an important priority.

Pat McFadden: The A and E department at Wolverhampton’s New Cross hospital recently saw a record 365 patients in one day. Those pressures will increase with the downgrading of Mid Staffordshire hospital. Does the Secretary of State agree that it will be deeply unfair to patients in both Wolverhampton and Staffordshire if the added burden on Wolverhampton’s New Cross A and E department is not met with increased resources from him, in terms of size and staff, to cope with the increased pressures?

Jeremy Hunt: We have not had the final recommendation from the special administrator appointed by Monitor for what will happen at Mid Staffordshire hospital, but we will make absolutely sure that any changes made improve patient safety and care.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Secretary of State agree that the new role that GPs will play in commissioning will greatly assist the production of better community services and more integration with social care, all of which has been championed so frequently by the King’s Fund?

Jeremy Hunt: I completely agree with that. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) for piloting those important reforms through the health service. I just hope that the Labour party, which claimed to support practice-based, clinically led commissioning, will see the error of its ways and understand that proper clinical commissioning holds the key to solving many of these problems.

Bill Esterson: One of the concerns raised with me is about the lack of commissioning of community services to help patients to be discharged from hospital, which has a knock-on effect on A and E and queuing ambulances. Is not the reality that, as health professionals tell me, the lack of community services, which is what causes the problem in A and E, is a direct result of this Government’s reorganisation?

Jeremy Hunt: Quite the opposite: the changes introduced by my predecessor make it possible to have truly joint commissioning between clinical commissioning groups and local authorities, which are responsible for social care. I hope that will deal precisely with the problems the hon. Gentleman talks about. That is what we have to encourage and facilitate in every way we can.

Paul Maynard: One million more patients a year are going through A and E departments and an increasing number of family doctors are progressively opting out of out-of-hours care. Why does the Secretary of State think that the King’s Fund can see the correlation but the Labour party cannot?

Jeremy Hunt: Because, I am afraid, the Labour party is completely failing to take responsibility for some catastrophically bad decisions that it made when it was in power. Labour Members might want to talk not only to people such as the King’s Fund, but to their own constituents, who say that traditional family doctoring is something they would like to see return.

Mike Gapes: How does the decision to close the A and E unit at King George hospital in Ilford, which was taken by the Secretary of State’s predecessor, who is sitting next to him, and confirmed by him recently, help to take the pressure off Queen’s hospital in Romford?

Jeremy Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the decision has been taken, but the A and E department has not been closed and will not be closed until it is clinically safe to do so.

Henry Smith: The last Labour Government closed accident and emergency at Crawley hospital, but in the last few years the urgent treatment centre has been able to see more and more patients. Does my right hon. Friend agree that upskilling urgent treatment centres is part of the answer to the problem?

Jeremy Hunt: I do, and my hon. Friend is right to point out that the last Labour Government closed or downgraded 12 A and E departments. The Opposition have criticised us in the press—indeed, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who is sitting on the Front Bench, has criticised me for not getting on and closing more A and E departments, which is what he seems to want to happen. Every time there has been a controversial reconfiguration, Labour has opposed it all the way. I think we could expect a bit more consistency from a shadow Secretary of State who was once a Health Secretary.

Virendra Sharma: About eight weeks ago, the Secretary of State made a commitment to refer the decision to close four out of nine A and E departments in north-west London. Can he tell the House why he has not kept his word?

Jeremy Hunt: It is a very important, complex and difficult decision, so I thought it was right to get independent advice from the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, and that is what I have done.

Tony Baldry: There is a general acknowledgement and recognition that one of the problems for A and E departments, particularly at night and on weekends and bank holidays, is people going to them who do not need to. Does my right hon. Friend think there is scope for the new clinical commissioning groups to commission primary triage at the entrance of A and E departments, so that those who need only primary care treatment are directed towards to it, and those who need A and E treatment go through to A and E?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that that actually happens in many places throughout the country, but we need to go even further. When it comes to the most frail, vulnerable older people, we need to commission services in a way that ensures that someone outside hospital knows what is happening with them the whole time, is accountable for their care and treatment, and can pre-empt the need to seek emergency care in the middle of the night. That will be the key to ensuring that the pressures on A and E are sustainable.

Barbara Keeley: Today, the Health Committee today heard that this Government’s cuts to social care were a direct cause of increased A and E attendances: patients cannot be returned home on time, and all the services that used to keep people well have been cut. This Government cut local authority budgets, resulting in £2 billion going out of adult social care. Will the Health Secretary now accept what the experts are telling us on the Health Committee: that that is the direct cause of the increased A and E attendances?

Jeremy Hunt: Once again, the Labour party opposes every single cut made by this Government then tries to pretend that it is serious about getting the deficit under control. On this point, I remind the hon. Lady that the NHS is giving £7.2 billion of support to the social care system for health-related needs, precisely in order to ensure that services are not compromised. Where they have been compromised, we are looking into it and we are disappointed about it, but we continue to monitor the situation and to urge local authorities to ensure that they discharge their responsibilities properly.

Jeremy Lefroy: As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said, we cannot divorce emergency care from the provision of acute beds. The Secretary of State mentioned the fact that an increasing number of patients with acute illnesses are going into hospital. May I urge him to look carefully at any proposals to reduce the number of acute beds anywhere in the country, because I believe that we shall need them all?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I commend him for the extremely responsible and committed way in which he has been keeping an eye on what is happening in his local hospital. He is absolutely right to suggest that, before implementing any big reconfiguration, we need to be certain that what we are doing will improve patient care and not damage it. I will continue to ensure that that is the case.

Tom Blenkinsop: We know that walk-in centres alleviate the pressure on A and Es. How many walk-in centres have shut since May 2010?

Jeremy Hunt: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that many more walk-in centres would be shut if we had to cut the NHS budget, which is what the Labour party wants to do.

Therese Coffey: The issue of out-of-hours care and the additional pressure on A and E has been present in Suffolk since before the election. Just last Friday, I was in Felixstowe to meet the
	four patient participation groups there, and yet again out-of-hours care was identified as a real problem. I welcome the reforms that might be announced later this week, but can we ensure that patients realise that we are on their side and that we want them to be back with their family doctor?

Jeremy Hunt: Absolutely. It is extraordinary that in this debate in Parliament today, Labour Members have their heads in the sand about the low public confidence in out-of-hours GP care, which is a major driver of the problems in A and E departments. We are going to sort out that problem—[Interruption.] If they do not want us to, they are just going to have to watch while we do it.

Ann Clwyd: I ask the Secretary of State to deplore the personal attacks that are being made on Julie Bailey, who was responsible for drawing attention to the many deficiencies in Mid Staffordshire hospital. She has suffered personal attacks in the street and has had faeces pushed through her letterbox. We should all deplore the fact that that is happening to such an important and brave whistleblower.

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Lady speaks wisely, and I completely concur with her comments. Those attacks are totally reprehensible and I condemn them utterly. Julie Bailey is a remarkable lady, and it is thanks to her that the standard of compassionate care in hospitals across the country is going to improve dramatically. We all owe her a huge debt.

Philip Hollobone: Thanks must go to all the staff at Kettering general hospital’s A and E for doing their best to cope with a 12% year-on-year rise in A and E admissions, which is being driven by one of the fastest household growth rates in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) and I have written to the Minister responsible for A and E services, as part of a cross-party campaign, to request a meeting to discuss the special circumstances that Kettering’s A and E faces. Does the Secretary of State agree that that meeting should take place at the earliest opportunity?

Jeremy Hunt: Of course. I have visited Kettering hospital myself and seen just how hard people are working there. They are doing a terrific job. My hon. Friend is right to say that the significant increase in attendance has been driven by changes in the local population.

Helen Goodman: The basic problem with the 111 service is the national specification of the triage system. The ambulance drivers in my constituency warned of this two years ago when the service was trialled, and last year the north-east local medical committee also told the Department of Health that the system was not working. It is the Secretary of State who has his head in the sand. Why does he not listen to the professionals on the ground?

Jeremy Hunt: I am listening. I have said that we have teething problems and that we want to sort them out. I am prepared to look at the whole of the 111 service to see whether it is delivering the service that the public need. However, I would say to the hon. Lady that the issues with 111 have focused public attention on the
	poor standard of out-of-hours care in many parts of the country. There is a particular issue of enabling people to speak out of hours to a GP who can, with their permission, look at their medical record, which is a pretty basic starting point. Until we sort that out, we will not be able to sort out the wider issue of confidence in 111.

John Mann: Despite my warnings in the Chamber, this Government closed the Newark accident and emergency department, as a consequence of which there has been a 37% increase in deaths. I know that the Secretary of State is too much of a survivor ever to dare to mess with Bassetlaw A and E, but does he agree that the reconfiguration of services in London has absolutely nothing to do with the reconfiguration of services in north Nottinghamshire?

Jeremy Hunt: All decisions on reconfigurations have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. The really important thing is to ensure that, when we reconfigure services, we have a good alternative in place and we are able to give the public the confidence that it is in place. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we follow the four tests before any ministerial approval is given for a reconfiguration to go ahead.

Andy Slaughter: Tomorrow is the 40th anniversary of the opening of the present Charing Cross hospital. The Secretary of State is welcome to come to the party, although he might be unpopular, as the A and E department there is one of the four in west London that he wishes to close. Three months ago, at Health questions, he told me that he would refer those decisions to the IRP, but he now appears to be telling my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) that he is taking advice on whether to do that. Will he stick to his promise and make that referral for a full review?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, I will.

Andrew Love: In 2009, long after the GP contract was introduced, accident and emergency units were hitting their 98% target. The Secretary of State has reduced that target to 95%, but we are now hearing that units around the country are not even achieving that. How can that possibly be? What steps is he going to take to deal with the situation?

Mr Speaker: The Secretary of State appears to have managed to make the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) smile. The occasion should be noted.

Jeremy Hunt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is probably the nicest thing you have ever said to me. I shall dine out on it.
	The answer to the question from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) is that the changes in the 2004 GP contract are not the only cause of pressure on A and Es, but they are a significant cause. They set in train a process of declining public confidence in GP out-of-hours care, which has fuelled the growth in A and E attendances, and that growth has continued so that in the three years since 2009, attendances have gone up by more than 1 million. That is why those changes are having a significant impact on A and E services.

Seema Malhotra: I recently visited the London ambulance service. When ambulance staff cannot hand over a patient to A and E, the patient is kept waiting in the ambulance. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the number of handover delays lasting more than 30 minutes has doubled to 200,000 in the past three years? Will he also update the House on when he expects that trend to be reversed?

Jeremy Hunt: Handover delays are unacceptable, and the short-term and longer-term measures that I am putting in place will, I hope, help to reduce them. The hon. Lady might want to talk to her own Front Benchers about this, however, because they seem to be setting their face against improving primary care as a way of reducing the pressures on A and E departments, even though that goes against the grain of what the public and the NHS want.

Andy Sawford: I support the request from the hon. Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss resources for Kettering general hospital, which is in a fast-growing area. Corby has the highest birth rate in England and is one of the fastest growing towns in Europe. I urge the Secretary of State also to recognise that the issues with the 111 service are rather more than “teething problems”. Twice this year, Kettering general hospital’s A and E has had to close its doors to all patients other than those arriving by ambulance and to notify the public not to come to the unit. That is extremely worrying for my constituents.

Jeremy Hunt: As I said, we need address all the problems with 111. The lack of confidence in GP out-of-hours care is one of the contributing factors to a lack of public confidence. The meeting that the hon. Gentleman mentions will be going ahead.

Lilian Greenwood: Eighteen months ago, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust experienced a sustained increase in visits to A and E and hospital admissions, resulting in thousands of cancelled operations. The trust conducted an independent investigation to help it to understand and respond to the crisis, which had multiple causes. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the study did not conclude that poor provision by GPs or the out-of-hours service was to blame?

Jeremy Hunt: If I recall correctly, the study said that there were multiple causes, but it was Nottingham university that said that poor out-of-hours GP provision was responsible for an increase in paediatric A and E admissions, so Nottingham university understands this issue.

Julie Hilling: On Sunday, some of my constituents dialled 999 for an ambulance for an 83-year-old woman who had fallen in the street. They were told to ring 111, but after 15 minutes, with the operator saying he was still assessing needs and the lady still lying in the street, they abandoned the call and rang 999, when an ambulance was dispatched. Is that the norm for this service?

Jeremy Hunt: No, it is not the norm; it is totally unacceptable. That is why the changes we are introducing will hopefully eliminate the vast majority of those kinds of issues. No, we are not going to stand by failures such as that when they happen.

Meg Hillier: The Secretary of State seems to have decided that changing GP out-of-hours services is part of the solution to the A and E crisis. In the Public Accounts Committee a few weeks ago, we heard from clinical commissioning groups that they fear a single tender just to GPs because of the threat of legal action. We have seen that played out in Hackney, where GPs have been knocked back by the clinical commissioning group. When will the right hon. Gentleman get a grip on his Department and let the CCGs have the freedom to commission local GPs rather than fear the legal action that prevents them from doing so?

Jeremy Hunt: I want them to have that freedom, but they are operating under the same constraints as primary care trusts, which means having to abide by European procurement law. It is the Labour party that is against any changes in our relationship with the European Union.

Luciana Berger: Can the Secretary of State confirm how many walk-in centres have closed since May 2010? Will he accept that those closures are linked to the rise in A and E attendance?

Jeremy Hunt: We absolutely need better alternatives to A and E, but let me remind the hon. Lady that if we followed her party’s Front-Bench policy of cutting the NHS budget from its current levels, many more urgent and walk-in centres would have to be closed.

Jim Shannon: In Northern Ireland as in England there have been lots of problems with increasing numbers presenting at A and E. The Northern Ireland Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety introduced the triage system, which enabled more effective processing of patients and allowed people to get the level of care and medical attention they needed. Will the Secretary of State agree to discussions with that Northern Ireland Minister to see what can be learned from what has been done in Northern Ireland?

Jeremy Hunt: I always welcome discussions with the devolved Administrations to see what we can learn. Better triaging at the point of entry to A and E is certainly one of the things that makes a difference between A and E trusts that are managing to meet their targets despite very high pressures and those that are not.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State and the 40 Back Benchers who contributed to the debate on the urgent question.

Point of Order

Andy Burnham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I trust that this will be a point of order rather than a continuation of the argument.

Andy Burnham: I am sorry to test your patience, Mr Speaker, but I want to ask you whether it is in order for the Government to brief newspapers about a major change of policy, to bring it before this House so that questions can be asked about that major change of policy, and then to fail to provide any details to hon. Members about the changes they have in mind. Is that acceptable behaviour, Mr Speaker, or is it indeed a major discourtesy to this House?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he knows, I attach great importance, as have all previous Speakers, to the timely announcement of Government policies in the House first and not to the media. I made a judgment that this matter warranted the urgent attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman will also have noticed that the level of interest in the subject was such that I thought it appropriate to run the urgent question very fully. As to what has or has not been disclosed elsewhere, I do not feel able on this occasion to say, but I would like to thank the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State and all colleagues for their participation. We will leave it there for today.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee.

New Clause 15
	 — 
	Marriages according to usages of approved organisations

‘(1) In the Marriage Act 1949, insert the following section—
	“47A Marriages according to usages of approved organisations
	(1) The Registrar General may by certificate approve organisations to solemnize marriages according to their usages provided that any such organisation—
	(a) is a registered charity principally concerned with advancing or practising the non-religious belief known as humanism;
	(b) has been in continuous existence for five years; and
	(c) appears to the Registrar General to be of good repute.
	(2) In the certificate referred to in subsection (1) the Registrar General shall designate an officer of the organisation (“the principal officer”) to appoint persons for stated periods of time to act as registering officers on behalf of the organisation, and may impose such conditions as seem to him or her to be desirable relative to the conduct of marriages by the organisation and to the safe custody of marriage register books.
	(3) The principal officer shall, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, certify the names and addresses of the persons so appointed to the Registrar General and to the superintendent registrars of the registration districts in which such persons live, together with such other details as the Registrar General shall require.
	(4) A marriage shall not be solemnized according to the usages of an approved organisation until duplicate marriage register books have been supplied by the Registrar General under Part IV of this Act to the registering officers appointed to act on behalf of the organisation.
	(5) If the Registrar General is not satisfied with respect to any registering officer of the approved organisation that sufficient security exists for the safe custody of marriage register books, he or she may in his or her discretion suspend the appointment of that registering officer.
	(6) A marriage to which this section applies shall be solemnized with open doors in the presence of either—
	(a) a registrar of the registration district in which the marriage takes place; or
	(b) a registering officer appointed under subsection (2) whose name and address have been certified in accordance with subsection (3) and of two witnesses; and the persons to be married shall make the declarations and use the form of words set out in subsection (3) or (3A) of section 44.
	(7) A marriage solemnized according to the usages of an approved organisation shall not be valid unless there is produced to the superintendent registrar, at the time when notice of marriage is given, a certificate purporting to be signed by the principal officer or a registering officer of the approved organisation to the effect that each person giving notice of marriage is either a member of the said organisation or is authorised to be married according to the said usages under or in pursuance of a general rule of the said approved organisation.
	(8) A certificate under subsection (7) shall be for all purposes conclusive evidence that any person to whom it relates is authorised to be married according to the usages of the said organisation and the entry of the marriage in a marriage register
	book under Part IV of this Act, or a certified copy thereof made under the said Part IV, shall be conclusive evidence of the production of such a certificate.
	(9) A copy of any general rule of the said organisation purporting to be signed by the principal officer for the time being of the said organisation shall be admitted as evidence of the general rule in all proceedings touching the validity of any marriage solemnized according to the usages of the said organisation.”.
	(2) Schedule [Consequential amendments—Marriage according to usages of approved organisations] has effect.’.—(Kate Green.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Kate Green: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New schedule 1—‘Consequential amendments—Marriage according to usages of approved organisations—
	The following amendments are made to the Marriage Act 1949—
	(1) In section 26 (marriages which may be solemnized on authority of superintendent registrar’s certificate) in subsection (1) after paragraph (c) there is inserted—
	(ca) a marriage conducted under the auspices of an approved organisation;”.
	(2) In section 35 (marriages in registration district in which neither party resides) after “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.
	(3) In section 43 (appointment of authorised persons) in subsection (3) after “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation authorised by the Registrar General under section 47A”.
	(4) In section 50 (person to whom certificate to be delivered), in subsection (1) after paragraph (d) there is inserted—
	(da) if the marriage is to be solemnized according to the usages of an approved organisation, a registering officer of that organisation”.
	(5) After section 52, the following section is inserted—
	“52A Interpretation
	In this Part of this Act “approved organisation” has the meaning given to it in section 67.”.
	(6) In section 53 (persons by whom marriages are to be registered), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
	(ba) in the case of a marriage solemnized according to the usages of an approved organisation, a registered officer of that organisation;”.
	(7) In section 54 (provision of marriage register books by Registrar General), in subsection (1) after the words “the Society of Friends,” there is inserted “registering officer of an approved organisation”.
	(8) In section 55 (manner of registration of marriages)—
	(a) in subsection (1) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”; and
	(b) in subsection (1)(b) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation” and after the words “the said Society” there is inserted “or organisation”.
	(9) In section 57 (quarterly returns to be made to superintendent registrar), in subsection (1) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.
	(10) In section 59 (custody of register books) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.
	(11) In section 60 (filled register books) in subsection (1), paragraph (b), after the words “registering officer of the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”; after the words “members of the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of the said organisation”, and after the words “the said Society” there is inserted “or organisation”.
	(12) In section 63 (searches in register books) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.
	(13) In section 67 (interpretation of Part IV), there are inserted in the list of definitions the following—
	““approved organisation” means an organisation approved by the Registrar General under section 47A of this Act;” and
	““registering officer of an approved organisation” means a person whom the principal officer of the said organisation certifies in writing under his or her hand to the Registrar General to be a registering officer in England or Wales of that organisation;”;
	and in the definition of “superintendent registrar” after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
	(ba) in the case of a marriage registered by a registering officer of an approved organisation, the superintendent registrar of the registration district which is assigned by the Registrar General to that registering officer;”.
	(14) In section 75 (offences relating to solemnization of marriages) in subsection (1), paragraph (a), after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”; and in subsection (2), paragraph (a), after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation.”.’.
	Amendment 19, in clause2,page3,line28,at end insert—
	(iA) section 47A (marriage according to the usages of approved organisations).’.
	Amendment 20, in clause5,page6,line29,after ‘solemnized’, insert
	‘and includes an organisation approved under section 47A(1).’.
	Amendment 21,schedule 7, page49,line16, after ‘celebrated’, insert
	‘and includes an organisation approved under section 47A(1).’.
	New clause 14—Civil union—
	‘(1) Two people, whether they are of different or the same sex, may enter into a civil union if—
	(a) they are both aged 18 or over;
	(b) they are not within prohibited degrees of relationship;
	(c) they are not currently in a civil union with someone else.
	(2) A civil union must be solemnized by a Registrar.
	(3) No religious service is to be used while the civil union registrar is officiating at the signing of a civil union document.
	(4) A civil union ends only on death, dissolution or annulment.
	(5) The Marriage Act 1949 is repealed.’.
	New clause 18—Marriage solemnized other than at a religious ceremony to be termed Civil Marriage—
	‘(1) Any marriage solemnized (whether before or after the passing of this Act) under Part 3 of the Marriage Act 1949 (Marriage under Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate), the Marriage (Registrar General’s Licence) Act 1970 or an Order in
	Council made under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 6 (other than a marriage according to religious rites and usages) shall be termed a Civil Marriage.
	(2) The Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor may, by order, make such provision (including provision amending UK legislation) as the Secretary of Sate or Lord Chancellor considers appropriate in consequence of this section.’.
	Amendment 58, in clause9,page9,line5,at end insert
	‘and such a marriage shall be a civil marriage’.
	Amendment 59, in clause15,page12,line15,at end insert—
	‘(ba) an order under section (Marriage solemnized other than at a religious ceremony to be termed Civil Marriage).

Kate Green: I am moving new clause 15 to introduce humanist marriage, along with new schedule 1 and amendments 19, 20 and 21 that are consequential to new clause 15. May I start by paying tribute—

Mr Speaker: Order. I will not say that I was heckled by the Clerk of the House from a sedentary position, as he was rather helpfully advising me from his usual position on a point on which we need to be clear. I am sorry if the hon. Lady thinks this is a pedantic point, but it is quite important procedurally. The hon. Lady can speak to the other amendments in the group, but the only item she is moving at this stage is new clause 15. We anoraks like to get these things right.

Kate Green: Thank you for that exceptionally helpful advice, Mr Speaker. I am, of course, moving new clause 15 and speaking to new schedule 1 and amendments 19, 20 and 21.
	I should like to pay tribute to the British Humanist Association for its support with drafting and its general and wider advice. This proposal seeks to put right a long-standing injustice in a simple and uncontroversial way.

Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Green: I would like to make a little more progress and then take some interventions. Let us start by establishing the ground on which I shall make my case and I will accept interventions later.
	Whereas Christians and most other believers have a choice when they marry of a civil ceremony in front of a registrar, or a religious ceremony that reflects their beliefs, non-religious people have no choice: it is the local registrar at a register office or in a so-called approved place or nothing.
	The Government have objections to my proposals. It is important to say this afternoon that we are absolutely crystal clear about what those objections are. If there are problems with the way in which the new clause seeks to achieve its objective, we stand ready to work with the Government to address those concerns. There is a very strong wish for humanist weddings to be recognised and for any perceived problems to be overcome.
	It has been suggested that the proposals before us are in some way a wholesale departure from what has been described as fundamental English marriage law. I question whether any such fundamental law in fact exists. Our
	marriage laws are an accretion of changes and legislative and social developments over many centuries, but I accept that the broad framework in which our English marriage system operates goes back in many regards to the 18th century when Lord Hardwicke introduced his Marriage Act 1753, which required all marriages to be conducted in parish churches and after due notice had been given.
	The privilege was later extended to other churches, not just parish churches, and indeed to other religions, but only to those places of worship registered under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. Before it is argued that that excludes the basis of the new clause, let me point out that there are two exceptions: from the start, Jews and the Quakers have been allowed to continue to marry according to their own rites. The new clause is in keeping with that approach of designating exceptions, in this instance for humanists. It introduces a third exception, but one that is very much on all fours with the exceptions made for those two other groups.

Therese Coffey: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Green: Of course I will.

Peter Bottomley: What about me?

Therese Coffey: Does the hon. Lady not recognise that the principle in England and Wales is that the premises are registered, and that if she pursues her agenda, she will be in danger of unpicking the quadruple lock that has been successfully negotiated?

Kate Green: The hon. Lady is right to highlight the general importance of the premises in English law in relation to most faiths, but I think she should bear in mind that in the Church of England the clergy are registered, that registrars are registered in our civil system and that, as I have said, Jews and Quakers already operate in a different legislative framework from that governing religions as a whole.

Peter Bottomley: rose—

Kate Green: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I promised that I would.

Peter Bottomley: I know my place.
	When I first received communications from humanists supporting this approach, I looked up “humanist weddings”, and discovered from the humanism.org.uk website that there are wedding celebrants who can take services now. It is recommended that people obtain a civil marriage certificate at the register office and then hold the ceremony wherever they want, perhaps in the open air: they are not limited by buildings in any way. I understand that that applies to a number of religions, as well as to humanists. I am therefore wondering whether we need to have this debate.

Kate Green: What the hon. Gentleman says about other religions may be correct, but it is not the case that all religions are required to go through a dual process.
	Jews and Quakers are not. My contention is that we should recognise the strong popular support for humanism, just as we recognise popular support for other forms of marriage. Many organisations can perform legal marriages in their own right, and do so for smaller numbers than the humanists would and, indeed, than the humanists do now. While I would not for one minute suggest that our marriage laws should be based on some sort of numbers game—although I believe that some Members sought to suggest as much in Committee, an approach that I found somewhat offensive and regrettable—my contention is supported, in this context, by the fact that not only is practice in relation to humanist marriages already fairly widespread, but the numbers are increasing. The popularity is growing.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Kate Green: I will of course give way to the Attorney-General.

Dominic Grieve: I hope the hon. Lady will accept that I make my comments in a completely neutral way and that I appreciate what she is trying to achieve, but I have absolutely no doubt that the new clause, if passed, would render the Bill incompatible with the provisions of the European convention on human rights, because it identifies a group that is not a religious group and gives it a special status. The first thing that would happen is that all sorts of other secular groups would claim non-discrimination rights under article 14. I realise that that may be capable of being cured, but I can only say to the hon. Lady that the new clause would make it impossible for the Minister to sign a certificate under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, enabling the Bill to proceed to the other place.

Kate Green: First, although of course I respect the Attorney-General’s expert advice, I must point out that the narrow drafting of the new clause follows advice from the Government’s own officials. We had been given to understand that it would be possible to prescribe, very tightly, a mode of marriage for humanists, legally recognised, and we are surprised that human rights objections are being raised now.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Kate Green: I will give way in a moment, but I have not quite finished dealing with the points raised by the Attorney-General.
	Secondly, although I am encouraged to learn that the Attorney-General believes that there is potential for some of the objections to be “cured”—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Kate Green: I must say, with respect to Government Members, that I need to respond to the first point before I can respond to points two, three and four.
	I understand that the possibility of challenge on the grounds suggested by the Attorney-General exists, broadly, in England and in Scotland, where humanist marriages are already being conducted. While I accept that there is one significant difference between humanist marriage and the religious forms of marriage that are recognised
	in English law—namely, that they are not religious forms of marriage—they are none the less a belief form of marriage.
	I venture to suggest that if we could have the benefit of a fully worked and argued opinion from the Attorney-General, I might be able to take on board his complaint, but, having engaged in a series of discussions with Government officials to reach this point, I am very disappointed to find that we are now being presented with what appears to be one potentially significant legal objection that has not been properly raised with us until now.

Stephen Williams: rose—

Kate Green: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who, I believe, first proposed this measure as an amendment in Committee.

Stephen Williams: Mine will be a triangular intervention, inviting the Attorney-General to intervene on the hon. Lady again. Given that humanist weddings have taken place in Scotland since 2005, and given that the United Kingdom, rather than England and Wales, is the signatory to the European convention on human rights, why has the Registrar General for Scotland not been subject to a legal challenge under the convention? Perhaps the Attorney-General can explain. [Interruption.]

Kate Green: My hon. Friend—if I may call him that in this context—has raised an excellent point. I hear mutterings from Government Members, who are suggesting that the answer to his question is that in Scotland it is the person who is registered. Let me say, with the greatest respect, that I do not see how that can possibly deal with the human rights point.

Dominic Grieve: I do my best to provide advice on the law of England and Wales—Scottish law is unquestionably different historically—but, according to my limited understanding of the position, in Scotland it is not just humanists who may be registered for this purpose; pagans and all sorts of other groups may also qualify. I simply make the point that the context of the Bill as drafted and as proposed today—I realise that the hon. Lady may be upset about this, but I have no role in it—the new clause undoubtedly introduces a serious human rights problem, which I think is obvious because of its discriminatory nature. That is really all that I can say on the matter.

Kate Green: I make no great claims for my understanding of Scots law, despite having a rather elderly and unused degree in it, but—

Maria Miller: rose—

Kate Green: I really cannot take an intervention before I have dealt with the preceding one. I will give way to the Secretary of State in just a moment.
	Although I understand the premise of the Attorney-General’s concern, I think that there are arguments to be advanced on the other side. The Equality Act 2010
	provides for the recognition of “religion or belief”, and we strongly contend that our approach falls within the same legal territory. We are also mindful of the fact that in Scotland, where such challenges have also been possible—I recognise that Scotland has a different legal system, but in this context I do not think that that is an issue—registrars have been able to prevent organisations with no apparent legitimacy or justification from being registered to undertake weddings. I should be grateful if it could be explained to me why, given the tight drafting of the new clause, that could not be the case here.

Maria Miller: rose—

Kate Green: I should love to hear from the Secretary of State.

Maria Miller: I would not normally intervene on the hon. Lady, but she said that Government officials had advised her in a certain way, and I wanted to make clear that they did not advise the narrowing of the new clause. They drew attention to the problems with the earlier amendment, which—I say this for the benefit of Members who may not have had an opportunity to read the report of the Committee’s proceedings—covered both religious and non-religious organisations, and created real and unnecessary uncertainty about who would actually be covered. I think that the hon. Lady is aware of the genuine problems raised by amendments tabled in Committee. They confused the distinction in marriage law between religious and civil ceremonies, and it was therefore unclear how the religious protections in the Bill would work within such a system.

Kate Green: I do not accept that. I do not wish for one second to impugn the messages received from officials. It is quite possible that there was some gulf in understanding between those who delivered the message and those who heard it. I was not present at the conversations myself, and the Secretary of State is, of course, right to put forward her description of what took place, but my understanding is that the way that they concluded led the British Humanist Association, which is advising me, to understand that a more tightly worded proposal, such as the one that I have put before the House this afternoon, would meet the concerns. Although that may not have been the intention intended to be conveyed, it was certainly the intention that it came away with.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Lady is making an extremely strong and compelling case, and I look forward to expressing my support for it in more detail later. I have here a letter from the Culture Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, saying:
	“I note the changes that have been made to narrow the scope of the amendments to cover the humanist organisations only, as we discussed.”
	Does the hon. Lady agree that that strongly suggests the Government supported this change?

Kate Green: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.

Anne Begg: I was at a wedding on Sunday. I only attended the evening part, but during the day there was a humanist ceremony, and everyone said it was a wonderful occasion. It was held
	in the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. Does my hon. Friend agree that humanists in Scotland cannot understand why their fellow humanists in England might not enjoy the same rights as they do and feel very disappointed about that?

Kate Green: I, too, have attended humanist weddings in Scotland, including that of my niece last October, which was an incredibly special occasion. I can fully understand what my hon. Friend says about the concern and hurt humanists across the UK will feel that these ceremonies that have worked so successfully in Scotland since 2005 have not been replicated here in England.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. There are 2,500 humanist weddings in Scotland a year now. It is now the third most popular form of marriage that we have in Scotland, yet the Attorney-General has suggested that these weddings are somehow illegal under European law. However, the UK is the signatory to European human rights treaties, so what he says is a lot of nonsense. Will the hon. Lady confirm that the UK is the signatory to the European human rights treaties and that, if these weddings are illegal in England, they must also be illegal in Scotland?

Kate Green: Obviously, I do not answer for the Government, and I will not respond to any specific interventions on that point. The hon. Gentleman may wish to make a speech later.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Kate Green: I will take one more intervention, and then I am going to develop the compelling case for why we want humanist weddings in this country, not why there are apparently so many legal objections to be overcome.

Dominic Grieve: The last thing that I want to do is interrupt the hon. Lady’s flow, but I want to reply very briefly to what was just said. I am not suggesting in any way that what is happening in Scotland is unlawful. Instead, I am highlighting that there is a serious defect in the amendment. Given the discriminatory nature of the favour it gives to humanists as opposed to other secular organisations, it would have the consequence of making the measure incompatible with the convention rights. I think that that is obvious when we examine the amendment.

Kate Green: It may be challengeable under the convention, but I do not think we know at all whether such a challenge would be successful.
	Let me develop some aspects of the case for humanist weddings. So far this has been a rather unpleasant and legalistic debate, and in the same spirit as our debates on same-sex marriage, I want to make the case that the House should feel joyful about humanist weddings and celebrate them.
	For those who are concerned about protections, the new clause provides that the Registrar General could issue a certificate to any organisation that
	“(a) is a registered charity principally concerned with advancing or practising the non-religious belief known as humanism;
	(b) has been in continuous existence for five years; and
	(c) appears to the Registrar General to be of good repute.”
	That provision addresses some of the wilder claims that unlikely organisations would or could either qualify or mount a human rights challenge.
	The details are closely modelled on the existing law, and they were drafted following conversations with the Government—although perhaps not conversations in which both sides fully understood each other—and address the specific points rightly raised by Ministers in Committee, when the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) first proposed the amendment. We have taken as much account as possible of the concerns that we believe the Government have about this proposition, and we are therefore disappointed and startled to see a whole new front of opposition opened up this afternoon.

Tony Baldry: For my own information really, can the hon. Lady say how much consultation she has had with the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and other Churches on this amendment and its possible implications?

Kate Green: I think that it is fair to say that the Churches are not displaying tremendous enthusiasm for this proposal. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not easy for the official Opposition to carry out extensive consultations, but the issue was raised in Committee, when we took evidence from some of the Churches, and I detected no great appetite or enthusiasm from them for further discussion of this kind of proposal.
	Of course, we would like the Government to adopt this proposal and take it forward wholeheartedly and in a way that delivers a robust and settled legal right to humanist weddings. In the absence of that, we simply need to take the evidence of the number of people who are coming forward asking for a humanist ceremony, the number of humanist ceremonies that are taking place and the very high popularity they enjoy both among those who participate in them and those who attend them.
	Let me read the remarks of one couple:
	“A humanist wedding offered us the chance to make the wedding ‘ours’, it enabled us to construct our own vows and create a ceremony that felt immediately very personal to both us and our guests, it also portrayed exactly what marriage meant to us and how we see our marriage growing in the future.”
	We should be celebrating that in the context of this Bill, and I greatly regret that a sense of celebration is being lost as a result of the way that this afternoon’s debate is proceeding.

Ian Swales: I should declare an interest: I am a member of the BHA. Is the hon. Lady aware that civil registrars are increasingly offering full ceremonies, so we already have a secular alternative, and this proposal does not make a new one but just adds one that a lot of people want?

Kate Green: I am disappointed in that question. Secular and humanist are not the same. I am not a humanist. I would want a purely secular ceremony were I to be marrying, but others want a ceremony that reflects their beliefs. Humanism is recognised as a strand
	of belief. A ceremony to accommodate that deep-held feeling has to be organised and provided if we are to meet the legitimate desires of our humanist friends and neighbours.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady will be well aware of my opinions and views on this matter. In Committee evidence, there was among the Churches and other religious organisations an overwhelming majority opposed to humanist weddings. Is she saying we should ignore that vast strand of public opinion—the many millions of people who oppose this—in favour of a small minority?

Kate Green: With the greatest respect, I do not think the hon. Gentleman has any evidence whatever that millions of people are opposed to this proposal.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Green: No, not until I have dealt with the question fully. I do not believe the hon. Gentleman has evidence of millions of Church members opposing this proposal. I fully accept that there is quite likely to be a lack of enthusiasm among those at the top of the Church hierarchy, but I would not necessarily take even that for granted in all cases. Many people, including people of faith, attend humanist weddings, and value and celebrate their participation, either as family or friends, in them.

Mike Thornton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Green: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman; he is next.
	Many people of faith—I think this is the position of Ministers—who believe marriage itself to be a ceremony of huge social value and importance would welcome a humanist marriage ceremony founded on belief and commitment in preference to a secular ceremony or to no ceremony at all.

Mike Thornton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and I must point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) was supporting humanist marriage. As a churchgoer and a Christian, I was privileged to be able to have a ceremony that I believed reflected my faith and my beliefs. I think it is vital that people with humanist beliefs who are not Christian and not churchgoers have the opportunity to have a celebration that reflects their beliefs. It is extraordinary that anyone of faith should oppose someone else having such a ceremony, and I do not understand such objections.

Kate Green: I am grateful for that welcome and helpful intervention and for the intervention from the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales).
	Concerns and doubts have been expressed about the quality of the service, if I may call it that, that humanists would offer, but the British Humanist Association runs a long-established ceremony service. We have already identified that many people, including many of us, have
	already attended humanist weddings and some of us might have attended humanist funerals or baby-naming ceremonies. There is a very long and extensive experience in this country of participation in such ceremonies and to my knowledge no adverse comment or criticism of them has been made at all—indeed, quite the reverse.
	It is also important to note that the British Humanist Association is extremely concerned about maintaining the highest quality. It trains, accredits, insures and provides a form of continuing professional education for its hundreds of celebrants throughout the country. Perhaps we should therefore not be surprised that the ceremonies attract high satisfaction as a result; more than 95% of clients, if I may call them that, give them a five-out-of-five rating. That is not an experience that all people report from their registry office or other wedding.
	Humanist weddings, in particular—this is based on the testimony of those couples who have had one—are greatly valued as reflecting those couples’ beliefs and allowing the ceremony to be devised, in collaboration with the celebrant, in a way that meets their own wishes. I have read some letters over the course of the past few weeks from couples who write eloquently about how much the ceremony has meant not only to them but to their relatives and friends. I am sure that over the past week or so, many right hon. and hon. Members will also have heard from the 3,000-plus humanists in this country, including many couples who have had a humanist wedding, about the importance of the ceremony to them. It is clear that we already have in this country a precious form of ceremony that is highly valued by many couples, and my new clause would simply seek to recognise and acknowledge that in law.

Susan Elan Jones: I have one fairly fundamental disagreement with the British Humanist Association, which is that I think they are wrong about God, but I fully believe that we need to acknowledge humanist weddings. Two generations ago, the established Church did not allow nonconformist Churches to hold burial rites in their churchyards. This is a dangerous precedent. As an Anglican, I do not feel in any way offended in my faith by knowing that humanists can celebrate weddings in such a way.

Kate Green: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Secretary of State has been extremely eloquent throughout the passage of the Bill about the importance that she personally attaches to marriage, so I say to her that my proposal goes with the grain of her position by seeking to extend marriage to more couples precisely because they share that sense of its importance and want to value it.
	The whole Bill is about equality, although I recognise that it is predominantly about equal marriage for lesbian, gay, transsexual and, indeed, bisexual people. My new clause is also about equality; it is about the equal recognition of humanist marriages. We should remember that they are already legal in many countries, where they contribute to an increase in the number of marriages, going with the grain of the Secretary of State’s ambitions to strengthen and extend marriage in our society. In Scotland, for example, the number of marriages has been rising in recent years, with an increase of more than 1,500 between 2009 and 2011, more than half of which are accounted for by humanist marriages.
	There is plenty of evidence of public demand for reform. I believe that this proposal is a reform that disadvantages no one and costs the public purse close to zero. In an age of equality, it removes an unnecessary injustice based on religion or belief, and it will strengthen the institution of marriage, going with the grain of Ministers’ intentions for the Bill. I believe that today we need to move forward to introduce legal humanist marriages in our country, as they have been successfully introduced in other countries across a range of legal jurisdictions. If the Government have concerns, we need to see a written view from the Attorney-General about those objections, so that they can be scrutinised not just by amateur Scottish lawyers such as me, but by properly qualified expert human rights lawyers and others. That would allow us to see in detail the reasoning behind the view that he has expressed at the Dispatch Box.

Angela Watkinson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Green: I will not, as I am just coming to a conclusion.
	If during this afternoon’s debate the Government can provide undertakings that they will put before us that full, reasoned legal opinion and give us the time properly to test and explore it, so that the concerns can be taken forward appropriately when the Bill reaches the House of Lords, we will of course be happy to take that time to ensure that the legislation is wholly fit for purpose. Without those detailed explanations, it is difficult for us to accept that there is some endemic objection in principle to introducing humanist marriage into English law, and that I is why I have tabled new clause 15.

Tony Baldry: Let me start by saying that I have great admiration for humanists. My mother was a Quaker and I was brought up and educated at a Quaker school. I often think that Quakers are simply humanists who believe in God—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is going to heckle throughout my speech, he will just indicate the discourtesy he shows for the views of anyone who disagrees with him. If we heard a little less from him, we would all do a lot better.
	As the House will know, when the Bill was introduced the Church of England and other faith groups did not greet it with unalloyed joy. However, we sought to engage constructively with Ministers and officials and they constructively engaged with us. Ministers and the Government made it clear at the outset that they wanted to ensure that faith groups that did not wish to perform same-sex marriages would not be obliged to do so. The legislation therefore has at its heart protections for faith groups such as the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, Muslims and others who do not wish to perform or celebrate same-sex marriages. That is enshrined in the quadruple lock for the Church of England, because of canon law, and in the other locks for other faith groups. Those locks are essential to ensuring the freedoms that the Government made clear at the outset would be there to protect faith groups.

Kate Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: Of course I will give way to the hon. Lady, but may I finish the point?
	Those locks are based on the assumption enshrined in English marriage law: English marriage law is based on buildings and not on celebrants.

Julian Huppert: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: I am going to give way to the hon. Lady, but let me finish the point because it is important.
	In Scotland, there is celebrant-based marriage, whereas the protections in marriage in England are based on buildings. If new clause 15 is passed, it will in effect unpick all the protections in the Bill that relate to the locks and to the protections for other faith groups.
	The Speaker acknowledged earlier that he was an anorak. There are degrees of anorakism in the House, and I too am a bit of an anorak, in the sense that I believe that if public Bills that will make substantial changes to public law are to be introduced, there should be proper consultation. As the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) honestly and properly acknowledged, there has been no consultation with faith groups on the proposed provisions, which would completely unpick the protections in the Bill that Parliament has sought to give to faith groups.

Kate Green: I do not see why faith groups should be singled out for consultation. If there is to be consultation, it should include those of no faith, and other organisations too. I do not understand at all how this proposition unpicks locks which are intended to protect religious institutions and individual celebrants within those institutions. I simply do not understand that, and I do not accept that marriage under English law is confined to religious institutions that have premises. As I say, English law also provides for Jews and Quakers to conduct marriages according to their own rites.

Tony Baldry: My point is that no one has been consulted. I was not praying in aid just faith groups. The hon. Lady has not consulted anyone, but she might at least seek to consult those faith groups for which there are protections enshrined in the Bill—unless she is saying that she is not impressed by the protections to ensure that faith groups are not compelled to perform same-sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. When the debate first started, many of the representations that I received were from people of faith who were concerned that this was a slippery road which would lead to their being obliged at some time in the future to undertake same-sex marriages in churches even if they did not want to do so, and I do not think it helps if the hon. Lady gives even a scintilla of a suggestion that that might be the direction of travel.
	The protections are very important. There are historic reasons why Quakers and Jews are treated differently, but they are faith groups. Indeed, Quaker marriages are not celebrant-based, because there are no celebrants in the society of friends. In a sense, the hon. Lady wants to have it both ways. The new clause relates to non-religious organisations, yet it seeks to apply the protections that refer to religious organisations. We therefore have a sort of bolt-on, whereby the hon. Lady is claiming for the humanists, who are clearly not in a religious organisation, the protections in the legislation for religious organisations.

Julian Huppert: I think that the hon. Gentleman has now accepted that he was not correct to say that all marriage in this country is tied to place, because as has been discussed, that is not the case for Jews and for Quakers. He has consistently made the case that the Church of England and other groups should be able to produce ceremonies in their way. Can he explain why, while believing that the Church of England should be protected and allowed to have its ceremonies in its way, humanists should not be allowed to have their ceremonies their way? I can assure him that humanists—the British Humanist Association—are not seeking protection from same-sex marriage; they very much welcome it.

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend is wrong. I have made it quite clear throughout that English marriage law is buildings-related, except, for historic reasons, where it relates to Quakers and Jews; it has never been celebrant-related.
	Let us consider the Scottish example. In Scotland we have seen pagan weddings celebrated, spiritualist weddings celebrated, and weddings celebrated by the White Eagle Lodge. That is a question on which our constituents should properly be consulted. I cannot speak for other Members of the House, but I have had enough problems in my constituency with same-sex marriage. If I go back to the shires of Oxfordshire and tell constituents that Parliament is about to endorse pagan marriage in England, they will think that we have lost the plot completely. If they think that the Opposition support pagan marriage and masonic marriage, they really will think we have lost the plot.

Kate Green: The new clause would not allow pagan marriage to take place. It would allow humanist marriage to take place, and the Bishop of Chester supports it.

Tony Baldry: The hon. Lady is a lawyer so, with the greatest respect, she has no excuse for not listening to the advice of the Attorney-General. He made it clear to the House—any hon. Member would follow the logic very straightforwardly—that it would not be possible in the Bill to give privileges to one non-faith organisation, the humanists, without its being challenged by other similar non-faith groups, such as the pagans or the secularists, who have had weddings celebrated in Scotland. Pagans would say, “We are allowed to have marriages north of Hadrian’s wall. Why cannot we have marriages south of Hadrian’s wall?”

Pete Wishart: I strongly object to what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting—that we in Scotland could not care less about marriage. We have had 2,500 humanist weddings per year. Marriage is important to people in Scotland. The only thing we want to do is extend it to people who love each other.

Tony Baldry: Nothing that I have said could possibly be construed as implying that Scotland is not concerned about marriage. The fact is that under a celebrant-based system, pagan marriages take place in Scotland. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asks what is wrong with that. There has been no consultation in England as to whether or not the people of England would wish to have pagan marriages celebrated in England. I am afraid that, if he cannot understand that, there is a great deficit in democracy so far as he is concerned.

Stephen Williams: The new clause as drafted, which has been exhaustively considered by the advisers of the British Humanist Association and passed by the Department, has its own version of a triple lock, one part of which states that the organisation in question, such as humanism, must be registered as a charity. I do not believe that the charity commissioners of England and Wales would register as a charity Jedi knights, white knights, druids, pagans or anyone else whom the hon. Gentleman wishes to conjure up, so they would not come under the provisions of the new clause.

Tony Baldry: The House will know, because it is a matter of record, that I am a freemason. Freemasons are registered as a charity. I do not know whether people in England want to see the introduction of masonic weddings. As the new clause has not been properly consulted on, and there has not been time for proper consideration of all its ramifications, it leads the hon. Gentleman into all sorts of areas that have not been properly construed. There has been no proper opportunity for the House to take the advice of the Attorney-General.
	I say to the hon. Member for Rhondda that during the past couple of days I have been a bit confused as to which are wrecking amendments and which are not. I am still trying to work out whether the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was a genuine amendment or a wrecking amendment. I am really not quite sure whether this new clause is a genuine amendment or a wrecking amendment, because it is difficult to see how Parliament, and certainly the other place, could allow the Bill as amended by the new clause to go forward without a serious delay while there was proper consultation to think through the ramifications.

Chris Bryant: I think the hon. Gentleman united the House in confirming that he is confused. We all agree with him; he is clearly confused. If he thinks that the new clause would lead to pagan weddings, can he explain why the Bishop the Chester—the Anglican, Church of England, Bishop of Chester—supports it? Would it not make sense for us to allow this to go forward to the House of Lords so that the Bishop of Chester can speak on the matter?

Tony Baldry: First, the only point that I am confused about is whether this is a wrecking amendment. Secondly, in this House I speak for the Church of England, not the Bishop of Chester, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, with 44 diocesan Bishops, it is usually possible to find at least one Bishop who will have a view contrary to the other 43. Let me put it on record, lest there is any scintilla of doubt, that the Church of England is strongly opposed to the new clause, not because we do not love or like humanists, but simply because it would unpick the locks in the Bill, which, when we started, were important to ensuring the protections of faith groups in the context of this legislation.

Tim Loughton: Notwithstanding the Bishop of Chester, does my hon. Friend agree that some very clear problems arise from the new clause, which could indeed turn out to be a wrecking amendment? Is it not therefore inconsistent for the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen yesterday to
	have promoted a review on extending civil partnerships, but on an apparently similarly problematic amendment such as the new clause before us not to mention such a review? Surely on that score it is a wrecking amendment.

Tony Baldry: I want to conclude by making a further and serious point.
	Those of us who were opponents of the Bill and who voted against it on Second Reading have taken on good faith—and it has been delivered in good faith by the Government and the proponents of the Bill—that there would be protections for faith groups and that they would not be compelled to carry out same-sex marriages if they did not wish to do so. My understanding was that that approach was supported by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen as well. With legislation of this kind it is important that people feel confident that it will not in some way be unpicked in the future, and that the protections for faith groups will endure, irrespective of any change of Government.
	The Opposition Front Bench’s approach this afternoon causes me concern. I point out that the Church of England has been wholly approachable to the Opposition—of course it would be—throughout the Bill’s passage. It is a matter of some concern that at no time have the official Opposition, who have adopted the new clause—it has not been moved by a Back Bencher; it has been proposed by a member of the shadow Front-Bench team—sought to consult the Church of England or other faith groups, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston has acknowledged and admitted, on the import or impact of the new clause.
	In every way, this is a bad new clause. It is bad because it has not been properly consulted on; it is bad because it will unpick the protections—

Julian Huppert: rose—

Tony Baldry: No, I am about to finish. [Interruption.] I have given way to the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions. I am sure that he can make his own speech in his own time.
	The new clause is bad, because it will unpick the protections enshrined in the Bill, and it is bad because it will lead to unforeseen consequences, upon which no one in this country has been consulted. If Opposition Front Benchers really believe that the new clause is tenable, I challenge them to consult their constituents and ours on whether people in England want to see the prospect or possibility of pagan marriages taking place in England.

Kelvin Hopkins: I welcome the debate. I strongly support new clause 15 and the associated amendments, and believe that it would be a massive, progressive step if the provisions were enacted. I declare an interest as vice-chair since 1997 of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, and as an active member of the British Humanist Association. In that sense, I have a vested interest, but even if I were not a humanist, I would passionately support the proposal to permit humanist weddings.

Peter Bottomley: I have been searching for information but cannot find it on how many humanist weddings there are in England each year on average at the moment. Does the hon. Gentleman have that information?

Julian Huppert: Six hundred.

Pete Wishart: Two thousand five hundred a year.

Kelvin Hopkins: Hon. Members are calling out numbers to me—600 in England and 2,500 in Scotland. Why something is so easy in Scotland and so difficult in England is beyond me to imagine.
	One point that the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) made quite strongly concerned democracy. Democracy is not dictatorship of the majority. Our kind of democracy accepts freedoms for minorities as well. The humanists are a substantial and significant minority, of whom I am proud to be one. Over the past decade, between the past two censuses, there has been a substantial increase in those professing no religion, and a significant proportion of those people have become humanists. If a number of those professing no faith understood that there was an alternative way of living according to some strong ethical beliefs, they could become humanists themselves. They would only need to find out more about humanism, and they might well become humanists and want a humanist marriage.

Ian Swales: In the 2011 census, 25% professed no religion. That is more than 14 million people. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that they should have the opportunity to celebrate their marriages?

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those figures, which had escaped me for the moment. Indeed, 25% is a substantial number. I do not want to oppress any minorities, or majorities, but I do not want my minority to be oppressed by anyone else.

Angela Watkinson: I do not think there is any question about the desirability of humanist marriages. The issue is that if we embark at this moment on the complexities that others have referred to, it will cause an unacceptable delay in the passage of this Bill.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I suspect that similar arguments were displayed when Catholics became emancipated in 1829. It was argued that it would undermine the constitution, that we have an established religion, and so on—all sorts of arguments against. When progressive changes are made, a year later such pettifogging arguments are forgotten.

Jane Ellison: To reinforce the point made in the earlier intervention, there is a great deal of sympathy for the proposed provisions. I went recently to a humanist funeral and it was a marvellous ceremony. I do not think that Government Members would argue otherwise. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, protecting minorities is important, and a great deal of care and thought has gone into the locks in this Bill to protect people of faith and to give them reassurance. The concern is that this Bill is the wrong vehicle in which to make this change, because by implementing a change for the humanist minority, one unpicks the protections in the Bill for people of faith.

Kelvin Hopkins: At some time, somebody can explain to me the difficulties. I just do not accept those difficulties. It is a simple thing to allow a significant proportion of
	our population to be married according to their own beliefs, in the same way that other people are married according to their beliefs. I cannot see that it threatens anyone else in so doing.

Julian Huppert: A couple of hon. Members have said that the new clause would unpick the locks, but they have so far failed to say in what way—I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees—because we already have exemptions for Jews and Quakers, who are not tied to a place. Does he also agree that if Members are to claim that, they should do more than simply asserting it to be true? They should try to provide some sort of evidence and reason why they think it is true.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Those Members sitting on the Government side of the Chamber will no doubt explain that in their speeches, and I will listen with interest.
	I like to equate humanism with other belief systems, some religious and some non-religious. It is interesting that in France, a strictly secular country with a strong separation of the state and religion, humanists are treated in the same way as religious organisations. Humanists cannot attain any kind of support at all from the state, in the same way that Churches cannot, because if they did so the Churches might try to claim it as well; so they are treated in the same way.
	In my constituency, which has many religions and strong support for them, we have a council of faiths that does wonderful work in bringing people together. It has produced a colourful pamphlet showing a rainbow spectrum of different beliefs and belief systems, including humanism, so it treats humanism on a par with other belief systems. I think that we should do the same by allowing humanists to be married.

Crispin Blunt: I want to intervene while the Attorney-General is in the Chamber. Was the hon. Gentleman, like me, astonished when the Attorney-General advised at the Dispatch Box that extending rights to a particular group of people could somehow fall foul of the Human Rights Act?

Kelvin Hopkins: It is bizarre, but I must say that I am not a lawyer—I am only a humble economist—so these things escape me. Perhaps I can look forward to legal explanations later in the debate.

Dominic Grieve: I will say this one last time. It has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of wanting to extend marriage to humanist or secular groups. The way the amendment has been drafted confined it to groups promoting humanism, but there are many other secular groups. The local tiddlywinks club might wish to become a registered charity and to conduct weddings, so by its very nature, and for that reason, it is discriminatory, and by being discriminatory it is in serious danger, I suggest, of violating article 14 of the European convention on human rights. I can only say that. It might be curable, and there might be all sorts of other things that can be done—[Interruption.] Well, not in this House. As matters stand, the amendment is in that condition. I made that point simply to help the House.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the Attorney-General for that intervention. No doubt Scotland will be drummed out of the convention for what it has done.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on her powerful speech, which I think she made extremely well. I only wish that she had been given more time to go through all the detailed objections, which the British Humanist Association has answered at length, but of course there is not always time in debates to answer every question. I assure hon. Members that the BHA has dealt with all the objections it has heard so far. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There are too many private conversations going on and I am struggling to hear—[Interruption.] Mr Blunt, order, please.

Kelvin Hopkins: In conclusion, I want to put it on the record that I strongly support new clause 15 and very much hope that it will eventually lead to humanists being allowed to marry in the way they wish and not to be required to get married in any other way.

Greg Mulholland: I want first to speak to new clause 15 and to express my full support for it. After doing so, I will link that with new clause 14, which stands in my name, and the comments I made yesterday on amendment 10 and why it could and should have been dealt with separately.
	In expressing my support for new clause 15, I remind the House of my early-day motion 667, tabled in September 2010, which called for humanist marriages to be allowed in England and Wales in exactly the same way as in Scotland. That is something I believe as a liberal, and also because I was extremely fortunate in having the honour of being best man at the wedding of two humanist friends, Derek and Louise, in September 2007. It was an honour to play a role in that ceremony. I was moved by what an appropriate, fitting and solemn ceremony it was. They were married exactly the way they wanted it to be, according to their beliefs. They were equally happy to participate in my Catholic wedding a few years before.
	As a liberal, I believe that each and every one of us has the right to marry according to our own beliefs. The problem with how the Bill is currently drafted is that we are allowing a situation to continue in which some religions—to be more precise, some sects of some religions—have access to a civil marriage ceremony while other religions, sects of religions and belief-based systems do not. To me, as a liberal, that is simply not justifiable. My opinion is simply that each and every citizen of this country, of all belief systems and religions and none, should have the same right to equal recognition of their relationship.
	New clause 14 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), whose support and common-sense approach on this I appreciate. The simple reality is that if the Government had approached this matter in a more rational and common-sense way, the debate we are having now would be entirely unnecessary. Many Members on both sides of the House—interestingly, they include many who have concerns about the Bill and many who fully support it—believe that we should be making a proper separation
	of the belief-based recognition of a relationship, whether humanist or religious, from the state’s right to confer legal rights and legal recognition on individuals. The trouble is that the Bill, as drafted, conflates and confuses the two. Even worse, it enshrines the confusion we have heard about, such as the various marriage Acts replacing each other, and adds even more layers of complexity, which means legal confusion. At the same time, there is the absurd situation in which the Bill is having to specify in law that some Churches may not marry certain people and having to put in place protections for other Churches so that they do not have to do so. Of course, if we had a proper separation of civil and marriage, those things would simply not be necessary.

Simon Hughes: I commend my hon. Friend for tabling new clause 14 and for advancing the argument that I hope to make later in relation to new clause 18, if you call me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the Bill’s real failings is that it does not address the need to separate, for the purposes of marriage, the secular and the religious. Had we gone down that road, there would have been a much better resolution and many more people would have found it far less difficult to deal with this legislation.

Greg Mulholland: I thank my right hon. Friend for that pertinent contribution. I support his new clause 18 and the similar way in which he is trying to deal with this issue. It cannot be right that certain people of some religions and, in the case of humanism, belief systems, have the right to access a civil marriage ceremony according to their beliefs while others do not. The Bill, as drafted, will continue to allow that. I am afraid that, as with civil partnerships, it will enshrine the existing inequality in the law, and that cannot be right in something that is supposed to be about equality.

Geraint Davies: Would the new clause, in essence, abolish marriage and civil partnerships and replace it with civil union? If so, what would be the status of someone who is currently married? Would they become unmarried and move into a civil union?

Greg Mulholland: Technically, in terms of the law, absolutely. As I said yesterday, the new clause cannot be seen in isolation; it has to be seen with amendment 10, which sought the repeal of the Marriage Act 1949. It must also be linked with the amendment that I tabled to remove clauses in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and to repeal the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The point is that there would be one single definition of a legal recognition for relationships.
	I am not necessarily dictating whether this should be called a union, a marriage, or, as Peter Tatchell suggests, a civil commitment pact. I am not particularly interested in the language. Some people feel very strongly that we should call it marriage; others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), do not like the word “marriage”. That is a debate to be had. The point is that what we need to do, and what the Bill should have sought to do, is give all citizens of this country the right to one single recognition by the state of their union. Of course, that would apply to everyone
	in an existing marriage or an existing civil partnership. Everyone would have the one single recognition through the state, and the legislation would have been drafted to achieve that. That answers the hon. Gentleman’s question very simply, but we are now moving into technical legal questions. In reality, this change would require a separate Bill, but it is currently proposed as a new clause.

Alan Beith: Would my hon. Friend’s proposals mean that Methodists, Catholics and others who fought for many years for the right to conduct a marriage ceremony that was valid in law would lose that right and have to go along to the town hall to get validation for the marriage that they had conducted?

Greg Mulholland: I believe that Methodists and Catholics should have exactly the same rights as humanists, Baptists, Jews and Quakers. That is my whole point. I do not accept that some religions should have the right to access a civil marriage ceremony but not others; as a liberal, I find that indefensible. My right hon. Friend has to accept, as do I and all right hon. and hon. Members, that marriage is being redefined; the state has chosen, through its Parliament, to do that. Therefore, now is the time to deal with the complex, multi-faceted and, indeed, confusing and discriminatory current marriage laws and to carry out the reform properly, which is not happening.
	I suspect that there is also a practical dimension to my right hon. Friend’s question, and I am happy to address that. In order to have the necessary separation between civil and religious ceremonies, we would need to ensure that no religious minister was able to convey the rights of legal marriage. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible, either through the presence of a registrar at a belief-based or religious marriage ceremony, or by another process, to have that conveyed at the same time. If my right hon. Friend is arguing against that separation, he is defending the situation that the Government are proposing, which will mean having to legislate on what certain Churches may or may not do and needing a complex system of law to ensure that other Churches, including the one he belongs to, are not then forced to do things they do not want to do. If we have a proper separation, none of those things is necessary, and surely that is the sensible way to proceed.
	I have had support from all sorts of different sources, including ministers from Churches of various denominations and other religions who are saying that this is indeed a sensible way to proceed. On the Gay Leeds website there is an article by Colin Ross in which he says:
	“This seems a very sensible approach to me, I am a gay man and not religious. If I wanted to spend my life in a loving relationship recognised by the state I want to be able to do that—without any religion having their opinion on it—but what is more I want to have the same rights as everyone else. The current Marriage (same sex couples) Bill does not offer equality, the legislation is flawed it still doesn’t provide equality especially in respect of pension rights when one partner dies and issues affecting the Trans community, likewise the Civil Partnership legislation was not about equality—as it neither gave equality to marriage and also did not allow opposite-sex partners to have Civil Partnership as well.”
	Similarly, in the release that he put out today under the headline, “Gay marriage bill is not full equality”, Peter Tatchell says:
	“Instead of bringing same-sex couples fully within the ambit of existing marriage law, the bill leaves some aspects of marriage law different for gay and straight married couples. Although these are relatively minor, they violate the fundamental principle of marriage equality for all.”
	He goes on to say:
	“While this may be a progressive reform of marriage legislation, it makes the law unequal. If we want marriage equality, that’s what the bill should give.”
	We should also have equality of religions and belief systems, and the Bill does not achieve that either.

David Burrowes: I welcome the debate on this subject; we had a shorter debate in the Bill Committee. The hon. Gentleman is clearly explaining that redefining marriage raises lots of complications. Perhaps if we had gone back to first base and had a longer, more considered consultation about the redefinition of marriage, although perhaps not quite as long as the one we are about to have on civil partnerships, we could have reached a more consensual view about the state’s involvement in unions. Has he made any representations to the Church of England? Would not his new clause have an impact on the relationship between Church and state, particularly with regard to the right of every parishioner to get married at their local church?

Greg Mulholland: My hon. Friend is touching on the elephant in the room, which is the establishment of the Church of England. That is another matter that is worthy of debate. There will be different views, and I hope that he is prepared to take part in that debate. I am trying to show that it is possible to separate civil marriage and religious and belief-based ceremonies without necessarily having the effect that he suggests. This involves the constitution as well as the Church of England. I suggest to him—I do not know if he would agree—that the Church of England is now in a most odd and uncomfortable position as a result of the way in which the Bill has been drafted. Similarly, it is not a particularly happy situation for other Churches. That would not necessarily be the case if we had the separation that I propose.
	I will continue to pursue this matter beyond the passage of the Bill, which will of course receive its Third Reading tonight. I share my hon. Friend’s view that had we had a proper and fuller consultation—this is not so much about the time period as about the intent and scope of the Bill—we could perhaps have looked seriously at sweeping away the current framework and coming up with one that is properly radical and fit for purpose, and gives all our citizens the same rights whether they are religious, humanist, or of no belief.
	If we want true and exact legal recognition of all adult couples and to convey the same rights to them all, we will not achieve that as things stand this evening. If we want to have clear and proper respect for freedom of conscience, we will not achieve that this evening. Those things are still possible if amendments are made. I ask hon. Members to consider the amendments. I do not intend to press new clause 14 to a vote, but I hope that the views that I have expressed have been heard and that
	the Secretary of State and her colleagues will note the support that they receive from all parts of the spectrum on this issue.

Geraint Davies: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and his interesting comments.
	I rise primarily to support new clause 15, which would allow people to have humanist marriages if they so choose. Members will know that that is an established option in Scotland, chosen by about 2,500 couples a year. About 600 couples in Wales and England choose to have a humanist wedding without it becoming a legal marriage.
	Religions do not have a moral monopoly on marriage. Different religions have different moral views linked to their faith, and the humanist tradition has its own secular but moral conception of what is right. The members of the humanist community want to be able to join in moral partnerships in which they may express and celebrate their personal ethics, and for those bonds to be recognised in law. There is nothing wrong with that. Like many Members, I have been lobbied by people in my constituency on this matter. Brian Cainen, who conducts various humanist ceremonies, including funerals, is very concerned and passionate about this, as are many people who approach him to ask about the options that are available.
	I was drawn into this debate by my interest in the issue, but I was disappointed by the level of emotion expressed by the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who seemed to suggest that humanist ceremonies were some sort of pagan ritual, whereas we are talking about moral, ethical people who want to pursue their own ethics.

Tony Baldry: I did not say that. Those of us who oppose the Bill have tried hard, so far as is possible, to make it work within the context of the protections that we have sought. When the Bill was introduced, faith groups were promised protections. It seems to me that we should finish the passage of the Bill where we started and ensure that those protections are still in place. That is all that I am asking for, no more and no less.

Geraint Davies: I accept that the assurances that have been offered to faith groups should be delivered and guaranteed, but what we are talking about is widening the franchise of equality so that people can be married whether they are of different sexes or the same sex and whether they are humanists or people of faith. As I said, faith groups do not have a moral monopoly. A quarter of people say that they have no religion—obviously, the situation is changing over time—and there is no reason why such people should not be embraced within the fraternity of marriage.

Bob Stewart: I am much taken with the idea of having some form of humanist marriage, but I am worried that by agreeing to such marriages, we would cause problems for religious marriage. That makes me think that perhaps we are rushing the proposals through too quickly and that we should perhaps slow down or stop and think again.

Geraint Davies: Clearly, we are here to debate the Bill. The people who push for delays and referendums tend to be those who oppose the Bill in any case. The debate
	on same-sex marriage has been going on for a long period, and not just in this House at this time. In the run-up to the Bill, there has been an enormous amount of discussion in faith communities, among people of no faith and in political communities. Internationally, we have seen equal marriage proposals move forward in a number of developed countries. I think that we have a role to play in providing leadership.

Katy Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that although the concerns that are being raised about process may be quite legitimate, many of us are concerned that it might be many years before we have another opportunity to debate and vote on this issue?

Geraint Davies: I very much agree with that important point. We are all aware of the political difficulties in the Conservative party and the differences within the coalition and across the House. Same-sex marriage is an important measure and it is imperative that we deal with it now. If it does not happen now, political complexions may change as we approach the 2015 election and we might miss the opportunity. People may make the calculated gamble that if the issue is pushed into the long grass, it will stay there. Thousands of people want us to move forward on same-sex marriage, a large and growing community of people want us to move forward on humanist marriage and, as we have heard Government Members say, there are people who want us to move forward on civil partnerships. I hope that the review on that matter makes rapid progress and that the options are provided in a fully informed way.
	I was very surprised by the Attorney-General’s intervention in which he seemed to say that new clause 15 would be in breach of article 14 of the European convention on human rights and would open the door for people who wanted to marry in the name of tiddlywinks. That was very peculiar. I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, to which the European Court of Human Rights has regard. I have not heard it suggested in any serious chamber that there ought to be parity between the rights of those who want humanist weddings, which are already an option in Scotland, and those who demand tiddlywinks marriages.

Julian Huppert: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geraint Davies: I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was a tiddlywinks fanatic.

Julian Huppert: I am not a tiddlywinks expert, but I am a humanist. I am a member of the British Humanist Association and the all-party humanist group. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that there has been a judgment on the what test should be for serious beliefs in such cases. The judgment in Grainger plc v. Nicholson states:
	“The belief must be genuinely held, must be a belief and not an opinion based on present available information and a weighty or substantial aspect of human life and behaviour”.
	None of that could really apply to tiddlywinks.

Geraint Davies: I am grateful for that intervention. It elaborates the point that we should not spend too much time talking about tiddlywinks. However, it was brought
	up by the Attorney-General and I thought that I had better deal with the matter because he said that his best criticism of new clause 15 was that it would be in breach of article 14 of the European convention on human rights. That seems very unlikely, to put it mildly. It is scraping the barrel and was a bizarre thing for the Attorney-General to say.
	I realise that the intention behind new clause 14 was to start a discussion, but it would abolish marriage and civil partnership and replace them with civil union. People who had been married in good faith would wake up one day and find that they were no longer married. That is not something that we should seriously consider. In the cut and thrust of political dialogue, it was famously said that people who went to bed with Nick Clegg might wake up with David Cameron. This proposal is akin to that idea. One day people would be married and suddenly, after a change in the legislation, they would no longer be married.

Greg Mulholland: After a reasonably intelligent start, it is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman is making silly, petty party political comments. I say again that there should be and would be one way of recognising all adult couples, including those who are already married or civil partnered. He is being slightly mischievous in another way, because those who believe themselves to be married in the eyes of one religion, Church or belief system would continue to do so, as happens now, regardless of whether the state regards them as married or not.

Geraint Davies: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is slightly lacking in a sense of humour. My point about waking up with David Cameron was not meant as a sharp political point. I am sure a lot of his colleagues would be very happy to wake up with David Cameron.
	On the serious point—there is a serious point—I realise that the hon. Gentleman is making a genuine point about the need for absolute equality in marriage and civil partnership and asking why, if that is not happening, we do not have civil union. I see the logic of that, but I was simply making the case that in practice, if that came in now and we essentially abolished marriage, people would wake up in a slightly different relationship from the one they anticipated when they made their vows. In parallel, I was making a perhaps not very funny joke about people voting Liberal and ending up with a coalition Government.
	This Friday is the 25th anniversary of section 28, which gives us a stark reminder that time has moved forward but we still have not made all that much progress. Gay people are still abused at school, for instance—where my children go to school, the word “gay” is used in an abusive way. We need to move forward and provide equality before the law. I appreciate that we are going to end up with equality for same-sex marriage and that there will still be work to do on civil partnerships, but in the meantime we need to move forward on the humanist agenda, whose delivery is already established in Scotland.

Jane Ellison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment that we need to make progress, but speaking as a supporter of the Bill, I am concerned about the advice that we have received that it may not be the right vehicle to meet humanists’ desires on marriage, even though many Members on both sides of the House wish to do
	so. The problem is not opposition to that aim, but the risk that the Bill is not the right vehicle and that by including such a provision, we would unpick the locks carefully assembled to protect religious minorities.

Geraint Davies: It is important that we have this debate. My view comes from looking at the detail of the Bill and from the fact that humanist marriage is already established in Scotland and seems to be working well. It seems to me that the Bill provides an obvious opportunity to introduce equality between humanists in Wales, England and Scotland sooner rather than later. I do not see that as a problem.

Lady Hermon: I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. He made fun of the advice given to us by the House’s most senior Law Officer. I obviously do not sit on the Government Benches, but I have the highest regard for the Attorney-General’s advice, and he told us clearly that supporting an extension only to humanists would be discriminatory. We have the European convention on human rights, and I say hooray for that—I am in favour of it—but how does the hon. Gentleman excuse the fact that the new clause applies only to humanists rather than having broader coverage? It is discriminatory.

Geraint Davies: The status quo is discriminatory in any case, which is why we are asking for equality for same-sex couples. Humanist marriages occur in Scotland without being challenged in the European Court, so there have been test cases. Like others, I am free to make jokes about the Attorney-General; he has no planet-sized brain that should intimidate us, and his reference to tiddlywinks invited scorn and ridicule, which I thought it was reasonable to supply. On that hilarious note, I will bring my comments to a close.

Crispin Blunt: I rise to reassure the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) that there is support for him on the Government Benches and to encourage the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) to press the new clause to a vote and not be put off by the blandishments that she may hear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I say that because I am suspicious when I cannot hear a single argument against the principle of a proposal—there is agreement that it is absolutely reasonable and a proper extension of rights to humanists—but we get a barrow load of technical or legal difficulties and risks, and the idea that there has not been time for consultation. The idea that we do not have the opportunity during the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament to sit down and address the technical objections to this suggestion and others, and to get the Bill right before it finally hits the statute book, does not reflect terribly well on us as legislators or on the advice that we can command.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) said that the Bill was not the right vehicle for addressing the matter, but I do not think that we will see another marriage Bill coming down the track any time soon. Ministers’ enthusiasm for re-engaging with the issue, after going through the joy of the past 18 months of consultation and processes, will be a little limited. That was why, yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary
	of State suggested a five-year time bar before the issue would be reconsidered. That was overturned at the insistence of the Opposition, whose amendment she accepted. I rather suspect that that time-limitation arrangement was suggested because Ministers have been somewhat scarred by the process of the Bill.
	That makes it more important for us to take advantage of this opportunity to deal with some fundamental points that seem glaringly obvious to me. It seems glaringly obvious that humanists ought to be allowed to conduct marriage ceremonies and that the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) has put forward yesterday and today ought to be addressed. We should take this opportunity to have a fundamental look at how marriage is delivered and to divide civil and religious marriage properly, so that we have dealt with all the problems that we are now wrestling with.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) prayed in aid the advice that we heard from the Attorney-General, but I have to say that although I am a very great friend of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and have huge admiration for his work and his intellect, I have never heard such nonsense on stilts put forward under the guise of independent and wise advice. It was certainly not the product of careful consideration, because it has come to the House at rather short notice. On reflection, his rather strange division between secular people and religious people, with the former not deserving the same consideration for the protection of their rights, would itself fall foul of any convention on human rights worth its name.
	My right hon. and learned Friend ought to have the opportunity to give rather more considered advice as the Bill proceeds through Parliament. I am sure that when it is considered in another place and then comes back to this House, if there is satisfaction that his arguments hold water, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and her colleagues who tabled the new clause will be happy to consider them again. We need to address the technical and legal objections that are being made to a measure to which I have heard no Member put forward principled opposition.

Lady Hermon: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention. I am not making this up; I am reading in black and white article 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states:
	“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention—”
	that includes the right to marry, which is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the convention—
	“shall be secured without discrimination on any ground”
	within the United Kingdom. It could not be clearer. The advice of the Attorney-General is that if new clause 15 is accepted and extends only to those who are humanists, that is discrimination and in breach of article 14. Will the hon. Gentleman address that point?

Crispin Blunt: If the Attorney-General’s advice is correct, there is a slight problem because existing laws are already discriminatory in that respect and vulnerable to challenge by the European Court of Human Rights. As I said earlier, it is preposterous to make the point that
	extending human rights and the right to marry to a group of people will somehow fall foul of the European Court of Human Rights, if our existing laws—which are more restrictive—do not already fall foul of that Court and would be challengeable in that regard. That is why I have a problem with that point. Humanists have a proper belief system and deserve protection under the charter and our laws, just like anyone else.

Tony Baldry: rose—

Crispin Blunt: I am just about to conclude, but I cannot resist taking an intervention.

Tony Baldry: That is characteristically generous of my hon. Friend. He said that there were no principled objections to the new clause, but may I try him on this one? He supports the Bill and wants there to be same-sex marriages, which is its purpose. I am sure that he also wants to ensure that no faith group that does not wish to conduct same-sex marriages is obliged to do so. The Bill sets in place a number of protections, and moving from a buildings-based system of marriage to a celebrant-based system, which the new clause would introduce, would simply unpick all the protections that have been built up through the course of the proposed legislation. If the protection of other groups is not a principled objection, I am not sure what is.

Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend speaks for the Church of England in this House and his principled objection is that it should have special protections. I frankly do not think that a quadruple lock is necessary; for me a single lock ought to be perfectly satisfactory. He and I will therefore differ on the practicalities of the protections that need to be given to religious organisations. He does not object to the principle that humanists ought to be allowed to carry out marriages—I have not heard him say that—but he is concerned that the consequences might pose a risk to protections for other religious groups to carry out marriages in the way that they want. I hear and understand that argument, but I think that it is probably technically deficient.
	In the time that the Bill will take to be considered in another place, and before it returns to the House, it is perfectly possible for all of us who want the Bill to proceed to test these propositions and see whether they undermine the protections that we seek to put in place. I do not believe that they do, and simply asserting that they would does not satisfy me. I want to understand that such arguments have merit. I do not believe that they do, but I am open to considering the arguments further, which is what we should do.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but may I help him with the tiddlywinks issue? The Attorney-General has referred to this issue as a comparator for humanism, but there is settled legal opinion in the European Court of Human Rights, the British judicial system and the Equality Act 2010 that the protected characteristic of a religion or a belief applies not to an individual belief or the fact that a few people get together, but to a whole belief system that has a structure and is organised and settled. That is why I am certain that the Attorney-General is wrong in the advice that he has given.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot see anything wrong with the point he has just made, but it is obviously open to my right hon. and hon. Friends to put their points and contradict him.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech and is generous in giving way. There is an issue of how to deal with legal advice. Does he agree that the law is capable of being constructive and not just a constraint and that it would therefore behove the Attorney-General and the Government to come up with ways to change the new clause to make it compatible with the law, rather than saying, “This doesn’t work; try again.”?

Crispin Blunt: To be fair to the Attorney-General, that is precisely what he said. He thought it would be perfectly possible to address these issues. He raised objections to the House. I happen not to agree with or believe them, but he said that it should be possible to address the issues being raised. Unless Members are prepared to stand up in the House and say that they oppose humanists being allowed to carry out marriages in principle and explain to me and the rest of the country what their reasons are, we owe it to humanists to do our damndest during the passage of the Bill to enable them to enjoy the ability to marry under their belief system with the same rights that we give to others.

Mark Durkan: Earlier in my political life I was Minister of Finance and Personnel in the Northern Ireland Executive, and in that capacity, bizarrely, I had responsibility for the Office of Law Reform and for registration. I worked to bring forward measures that were about changing how civil registration and civil law on marriage related to the different religions in Northern Ireland, because it related very differently. Unlike what the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) said in his description of the law on marriage in England, which was that is entirely related to premises or property, the situation in Northern Ireland meant that for Catholics, as long as a marriage was conducted by an episcopally-ordained priest—it did not matter where—the state recognised it. For the Church of Ireland, only the premises mattered.
	Under powers that came from the old position of Lord Lieutenant General in Ireland from the 17th century, I had to sign if a new Church of Ireland church was created. There was a wonderful vellum scroll and illuminated manuscript—so much so that I was able to tell my wife that I felt like a lay bishop in the Church of Ireland. For Presbyterians it was different again: the persons were recognised, for the conduct of marriage, within the geography of a given presbytery, and marriage was not confined to a particular building or anything else.
	We brought forward measures to try to equalise things, and in many ways we borrowed from changes made in Scotland. Some of the Churches were shaky on it at the time, but the smaller Protestant Churches were glad of our changes, because many that could conduct marriages on their only if a civil registrar was also present to verify it, were then able to conduct them under their own auspices and integrity of their rites and rituals.
	At that time I made it clear to my officials that if demand emerged in relation to humanists or another belief system, we would have to address that. It did not
	emerge during the debates at the time, but I support the principle of it. I have said about other aspects of the Bill that all equality should be equal; the problem that some of us have with this Bill is that it is not equal in all cases in its central thrust of extending equality to same-sex couples. I supported the Bill on Second Reading and continue to support it, but I appeal to colleagues to stop jumping and hopping about here and there on the issue of when they want equality, and when they support and respect belief systems.
	I have no problem with this Bill or any other measure respecting the belief system of humanism, and ensuring that people can achieve that. That is happening with legislation in the south of Ireland. I represent a border constituency. I am a Catholic who is part of a cross-border diocese. As a result of the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill which passed the Oireachtas, later this year and certainly next year humanist marriages will be conducted in Ireland just over the border from my constituency. Just as many people who are married in church go over the border for those weddings, so too will people from my city for humanist weddings. I therefore have no principled opposition to new clause 15.
	The legislation in Ireland gives the registrar general the capacity to recognise a secular body, which can in turn appoint people who would be registered to solemnise marriages. Like new clause 15, the Irish measure defines a secular body as one that must exists for at least five years and as a charity. The body cannot have profit making as one of its purposes. The legislation also describes such a body as
	“an organised group of people who have secular, ethical and humanist beliefs in common.”
	The Irish Attorney-General felt that that term would cover against any allegation that the provision was so specific that it related to one existing organisation only—the Humanist Association of Ireland. The Irish Attorney-General therefore found a way around—there is a specific and clear definition, but it is not open to the challenge that it is exclusively defined, which seems to be what the UK Attorney-General was saying. Those who support the principle of new clause 15 might want to look at the Irish wording as things progress.
	It is right that hon. Members should be accommodating of a belief system that is not properly recognised in our marriage system and that they want such a belief system to be recognised in the Bill, but they should think about the speed with which they rejected emblematic, conscience amendments yesterday. People with other distinct belief systems feel a wee bit under threat and are concerned about slippery slopes. There was an attempt yesterday to make a concession and offer comfort by recognising such belief systems, but hon. Members decided they would not do so. Today, there is an opportunity to accommodate another belief system. Many hon. Members who rejected the accommodation of people’s belief systems yesterday back today’s proposal. I wish they would have supported both measures.

Greg Mulholland: As ever, the hon. Gentleman brings an interesting perspective from his experience. Regardless of the many different views—it is important to say that there are not just two views—it is incredibly disappointing that the Government, despite saying they would engage and listen, have accepted not a single amendment in
	Committee or on the Floor of the House. I am afraid that that is not an appropriate way in which to make a big change of this nature. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern?

Mark Durkan: I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. That will be one of the difficulties. The fewer amendments that are accepted in the House, the bigger the excuse for the other place to take longer, and to go more deeply and more wide ranging with amendments. People should be able to see that the House has given the Bill due consideration and added to it in a number of respects. If people wanted belt-and-braces protections in the Bill, and apps and widgets, to make them feel more secure and comfortable, why not give them? We should want people to feel more comfortable with the passage of the Bill, no matter what their reservations about its provenance. That is why I support amendments that make more people, such as humanists, feel included in the equality that the Bill extends.
	Hon. Members should remember that we had a choice yesterday on civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples. The issue was ducked. We were told that the matter could be complicated and that there could be a review. I would like the people who supported that measure to feel included in the effort to extend equality in the Bill. I hope that that happens if the matter is raised in the other place. I do not believe that this will be the last the House sees of the Bill. The Bill will come back to us, because people are saying that we are being selective in adding to the Bill and widening its scope.
	Some hon. Members argued against the civil partnerships amendments yesterday even though they support the principle of equality in civil partnerships. They argued that such a measure was not germane to the Bill, and that it took us beyond the Bill’s scope. However, the same people want an extension for humanist marriage—I agree with them—even though other hon. Members say that there is a risk and that it could raise far more complicated issues. The Attorney-General and the Government are not the only ones who must answer questions as to the inconsistency or strength of their argument. I have noted a lot of inconsistency in the House on how far we go to respect belief systems.
	I continue to support the main purpose of the Bill. I ask hon. Members to be more accommodating in respect of all belief systems than they have been so far. Hon. Members who have Church-related objections to the Bill have strong objections to how I have voted and how I will continue to vote, but perhaps I am lucky, because none has been swivel-eyed and none has argued with pious prejudice. There have been measured objections. They wanted the protection clauses because they are concerned that their faith and their sense of the love of God will be the new love that dare not speak its name. That is what makes people worried and discomfited. I want hon. Members to give full equality, consideration and comfort to humanists, and full respect for their belief systems. I also want those things for all Christians.

Simon Hughes: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I agree with a huge number of his comments. He and I have voted similarly pretty well throughout the passage of the Bill.
	I want to pick up on a comment the hon. Gentleman made towards the end of his speech. He and I voted for new clause 10 on the implementation of civil partnerships for straight couples. I voted for the new clause not because it was a wrecking amendment but because I believe in the principle. I signed it before the Government tabled their new clause proposing a review and before Labour tabled its amendment. If people look at my record, they will see that I have argued for that position over many years, yet it is suggested that I was trying to block the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has a similar view to mine.

Stephen Williams: I originally proposed a version of new clause 10 in Committee. I did not see it as an attempt to wreck the Bill; I genuinely felt it was an opportunity to close that loophole.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are obviously not going to reopen yesterday’s debate. We are discussing other amendments today.

Simon Hughes: The proposals appear to be linked, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for that proposal and many others he has made, and for his much-respected work. We do not agree on every single item, but his record is one of which the Liberal Democrats and Parliament should be proud.
	Let me put my position on the record. I believe, have believed and was brought up to believe that marriage is ordained by God. I believe that marriage is traditionally ordained by God to be between one man and one woman. I believe that marriage was set up by God for the creation of children. I believe that it was to link the biological needs of children with their biological parents. I believe that it was for biological complementarity. I believe that it was for gender complementarity, and that it was a gift of God in creation. That is why I have taken a traditional Christian and other-faith view on how marriage has traditionally been—for one man and one woman—which was the case long before we legislated for such things in this country and made them the law of the land.

Diane Abbott: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: I will give way, but I anticipate being able to deal with the hon. Lady’s intervention.

Diane Abbott: On the question of children, is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that couples who are infertile or couples who marry when the female partner is past the age of childbearing—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are not talking about infertile couples. Unfortunately, we are on the humanist part of the Bill, and that is what we will discuss. Fortunately or unfortunately—depending on which way we look at it—we must try to speak to the amendments if we can. I hope, Mr Hughes, that you are not going to tempt many others down another track.

Simon Hughes: I will not, but with respect I want to say a word about humanism and speak to my new clause 18, which is in this group, on the difference between the church and the state.
	Let me say to the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that of course marriage is never only for the production of children. Many people get married without that intention, and it might be impossible for some. That is not the argument. In the theological tradition, one purpose of marriage is to have children, and that is not possible, biologically, between two men or between two women. Some churches believe that marriage is a sacrament or holds another special position.
	We move from that position of faith to one where we legislate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) intervened earlier to make it clear that Methodists, Quakers, Jews and the Free Churches had to fight for the right to perform marriages in their churches. Now, places that have nothing to do with churches or faiths are licensed to carry out marriages—civil marriages became possible. The position of registrar was set up and people are able to have entirely civil marriages in a registry office. That is still the case. Marriages can be held in a place that is entirely civil—in a state-authorised location—or in a place of worship, which can also include the legislative provisions that the state requires.
	In all my time in the House, I have argued that we should try to separate those two things. New clause 18 suggests a way of doing that, just as new clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), does. I believe in the disestablishment of the Church of England. I am a member of the Church, but I believe in its disestablishment. Just as the Church in Wales has been disestablished, I have always believed that in England we should separate as much as possible the activities of the Church and the activities of the state. Marriage, therefore, between a man and a woman in a Christian or religious sense is different from marriages, partnerships or unions that are secular, or between people of the same sex.
	I pray in aid the view, which has been quoted already, of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). It was referred to in the Public Bill Committee and goes back to what he said in 2004. When he was asked whether he agreed with the proposition about same-sex marriage, which is at the heart of the Bill, he answered:
	“I do not support that; I believe that marriage is an institution that is ordained of God and should be celebrated between a man and a woman. However, I also believe that two men or two women can have a relationship that in many ways mirrors that between a man and a woman but is not identical. Therefore, I believe that we should have in law separate institutions that reflect that reality.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 October 2004; c. 68-70.]
	That has always been my position too. We should give equal rights to gay and straight couples to form partnerships, unions or relationships that give the same pension rights and status, but are not the same as the traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
	Colloquially, people talk of equal marriage, and I understand that. People who are in civil partnerships talk of being married, and of their husbands and wives. We are not going to be able to put the clock back, which is why new clause 18 talks about “civil marriage” and not civil union. Many of my Christian friends say that that is an unacceptable compromise, because the Christian view of marriage cannot be changed by calling it civil marriage. We have to wrestle with that issue and sort it
	out, because we could have civil marriage that is different from faith, Christian or religious marriage, and I think that people would reasonably understand the difference.

Julian Huppert: I respect my right hon. Friend on many things, but I disagree with quite a lot of what he is saying. Is he genuinely saying that he would deny faith groups, which believe marriage should truly be equal, the ability to do that, because of his personal belief? Is he refusing to allow them to call it a proper marriage or a faith marriage?

Simon Hughes: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I do not believe that and I am not arguing that. They should of course be entitled to hold that view.
	This group of amendments seeks to give humanists the right to have humanist weddings. I support that proposal. I understand the objection to the technical drafting, and perhaps that needs to be considered. However, the principle—my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) made the point—of allowing humanist weddings seems to me to be the right one. The hon. Member for Foyle argued that that is what happens over the border in Ireland. Humanists have a belief, and therefore they should be entitled to have weddings according to their belief. Constituents have argued for that, it happens already in Scotland, and, like other people, I too have been to a humanist ceremony—not a wedding, but a funeral.
	As a light intervention, we should not be overly afraid of the word “pagan”. My dear late mother, who lived in a village in Herefordshire, in her latter years went to a pagan wedding in the orchard in Hampton Bishop. She said it was one of the most enjoyable weddings she ever attended. Of course, there was a civil ceremony beforehand. People should be allowed to have the practice they want, including humanist weddings.

Susan Elan Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what his proposal would mean to a Nigerian couple on Old Kent road who want to get married in their large, African, black majority church? Would they have to have a separate civil wedding?

Simon Hughes: That is a good question. The hon. Lady, as a former Southwark councillor, knows well the communities I represent. The short answer is that we could do it one of two ways. We could either do what is done in many countries on the mainland of Europe, which is to require everybody to have a civic ceremony first. In France or Belgium, people go the town hall, have the civil ceremony and then go to their church, mosque, temple or synagogue and have their faith ceremony. Secondly, one could separate, in the place of worship—the black-led church on the Old Kent road, my own church or any other—the civic part of the ceremony from the faith part. That is not done in the same way at the moment. In my church in Bermondsey people do not see clearly the distinction between the two parts. The couple going to the church on the Old Kent road would believe they were being married in the eyes of God. They would also want to be married in the eyes of the law. It could be done in either of those ways.
	What do I want new clause 18 to achieve? For heterosexual couples, I want us to allow a humanist wedding, a civil marriage or a civil union, and civil partnerships. For same-sex couples, I want full, equal civil rights as a married couple, to be called either a civil marriage or a civil union. I want them to have civil partnerships, too. I hope also that we will not allow the easy transfer between civil partnerships and civil marriage, going from one to the other by signing a form, which is the weakness of clause 9.
	New clauses 18 and 14 seek to address an issue that the House has not so far wrestled with: would it not be better to seek to address the need to separate, for these purposes, the faith and belief of people of faith that marriage is ordained by God, and the civil responsibility of the state to provide a place where people can come together and perform a ceremony in the eyes of the law? It is pity that we have not addressed it. I will judge the mood of the House on whether to put that to a vote. I am sure it will be addressed in the other place. I hope we can give everybody equal status in the eyes of the law, and, coming back to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the right for each faith group to decide whether to regard heterosexual couples and same-sex couples as able to be married in the context of their faith, which we should allow to all faiths, as well as to those with no faith at all.

Iain McKenzie: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for having to leave the Chamber earlier.
	On Second Reading, I was in a minority among Labour Members in voting against the Bill. I voted against it not because I did not want to see equality, but because, as some saw it, people’s faith and beliefs were being challenged. Again, today, I acknowledge the need to respect people’s faiths and beliefs, but I feel that that should extend to humanist beliefs and that humanists should have the option of a humanist marriage ceremony.
	Given the volume of correspondence I received in the lead-up to Second Reading, I would say that this Bill is the most controversial I have been involved in since entering the House in 2011. When it was presented on Second Reading, I was made very aware of my constituents’ concerns, and like many Members I was inundated by e-mails, letters and phone calls in which people overwhelmingly expressed their fear that their beliefs, faith and religious freedoms were being challenged. I have not received that level of correspondence over today’s new clauses.
	As a result of the number of inquiries I received, I took time to scrutinise the Bill, and I found cause for concern. The religious communities felt vulnerable and at risk of having their faith and their freedom to practise their faith threatened by the Bill. The Churches felt that they would be legally bound to carry out same-sex ceremonies, even to the point of being threatened with legal proceedings if they refused. It would not have been fair to place the Churches in such a position, so I concluded on Second Reading that I could not support the Bill. I voted against it not because I was not committed to equality—I most certainly am—but because I did not want the religious communities put in that position. It was not an easy decision to take.
	I kept my constituents up to speed as the Bill progressed through Committee, and to date the response to the changes made and the reassurances given to the Churches in Scotland has been nothing but positive. The opt-in gives religious communities the assurance that their faiths will be respected and that they will have the right not to conduct same-sex marriages if it is against the teachings of their Church.
	I have been contacted by some via the wonder that is Twitter. One person wrote that we should vote for the Bill because fairness trumped faith. I have to tell that person and the House that nothing trumps faith, but I will support the Bill, as amended, through Parliament because respect, understanding and equality must be delivered for all, including humanists seeking the right to a humanist marriage ceremony.
	I have seen the Bill divide generations over their understanding and acceptance of this issue. I concede that it will not be the case with every family, but I have two sons who cannot understand why this equality has not been introduced before. They ask, “Why? Why has Parliament not addressed this before?” My parents, who have been married for 55 years, also ask, “Why? Why is this changing now?”, and they are worried. They wonder if it will change or adversely reflect on their own long marriage. I tell them that it will not and that in the months and years ahead people will be asking why we did not introduce this equality before. In time, they will be reassured that the Bill will strengthen, not weaken, marriage.

Sandra Osborne: My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech, and I think we can all identify with what he says about the change between generations, but change happens. Only yesterday, we heard that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland voted to allow gay ministers to be ordained, if the congregations so choose. That is a major change illustrating that equality is now regarded as important even by the national Church of Scotland.

Iain McKenzie: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Members for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) are making valid points, but they are Third Reading points and not relevant to the new clauses on recognising humanism, which we need to deal with before we get to Third Reading. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not get teased down the route the hon. Lady wants him to go down and instead referred specifically to the new clauses.

Iain McKenzie: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will take your direction and end by simply saying that respecting faith and belief and equality are essential and must be extended to humanist marriages.

Mike Weatherley: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), I wish to speak in favour of new clause 15, although I will try not to duplicate the points he made so very well.
	As many in the Chamber will know, I have been a strong supporter of equal marriage from the outset. Indeed, in 2010 I wrote to the Prime Minister asking for
	legislation to be laid before the House. While we are talking about equal marriage rights, it seems logical that we should address the issue of humanist marriages at the same time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, it could be a decade before we revisit this issue. There has been talk about the percentage of various people in the last census, but in a recent YouGov poll, 67% of people—two thirds of the population—said they had no religion. Those in a huge section of our society in England are being denied the opportunity to make a full-scale commitment to one another. Their only option is a register office marriage.
	As we have said before, that is not so in Scotland, where it has been legal to have a humanist marriage since 2005. Indeed, last year more people took that route than entered into Roman Catholic marriages, and the expectation is that the figure will pass the number of Church of Scotland marriages in 2014. Clearly there is a huge demand for this change in the law. If my postbag is any indication, I would expect similar numbers to be reflected in England; I can report that I have had many letters in support of humanistic marriages and none against. As has been mentioned, it is also possible to have a humanist funeral—just not a marriage, in the eyes of the law.
	For those who are opposed, there is often a fundamental misunderstanding about what humanism is. I did not know much about the definition either until a few years ago. My father was diagnosed with cancer and was told he had six months to live. He calmly set about putting his affairs in order, which included his funeral arrangements. I was surprised when he put down the details of the humanist funeral he wanted. He was an exceptionally honest, hard-working man, well respected in the community and living by what we all know as Christian values. He did not go to church, but then again the majority of people do not.
	Throughout recorded history, there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have trusted to the scientific method, evidence and reason to discover truths about the universe and have placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making. Today, people who share these beliefs and values are called humanists and this combination of attitudes is called humanism. Many millions of people in Britain share this way of living and of looking at the world, but many of them have not heard the word “humanist” and do not realise that it describes what they believe.
	Just to be clear, a humanist, roughly speaking, has come to mean someone who trusts the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works; rejects the idea of the supernatural, and is therefore probably an atheist or agnostic; makes ethical decisions based on reason, empathy and concern for human beings and other animals; and believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same. That definition is important, because we have heard a lot about how Jedi knights and
	so on will be able to do this. We have also heard other definitions and talked about tiddlywinks, but it is important to realise that these are real, strong, belief cultures.

Margot James: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech in favour of humanist weddings. I agree with him in principle, but is he not concerned, being a believer in equal marriage—as I know he is—about the Attorney-General’s advice that if we accepted the new clause, we would threaten the religious guarantees that we have given the Church of England?

Mike Weatherley: Of course I have total respect for the Attorney-General’s opinions, but as we all know, in law and legal advice, there is no firm decision or certainty until something goes to court. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, I have yet to hear a cohesive argument for why what my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) describes would be the case. Just saying it time and time again does not make it right. If someone can say why that would happen, we would of course listen. The last thing I want to do is delay the implementation of same-sex marriage, as my hon. Friend will know, but we are in danger of missing a huge opportunity to extend equal marriage to a huge section of our population who at the moment are being ignored.

Jim Shannon: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should ignore the advice and legal opinion offered by the Attorney-General? Does he think that we should just put that aside and push ahead with this provision?

Mike Weatherley: People ignore legal advice for all sorts of reasons. I am saying that I would like that legal opinion to be put to the test. We should not simply say, “Oh well, if that is the case, we will just sit back and not do this.” It is up to us to find a way of doing it. I do not happen to think that that interpretation is the correct one, and I would like to see it put to the test, as would many other people.
	It is evident from what is happening in Scotland that there is a huge latent demand for humanist marriages, as well as for equal marriages. If humanism was right for my father, I for one would like to see equal marriages extended to include humanist marriage ceremonies. I would find it odd if those who supported same sex equal marriage did not also support equal marriage for others, which is why I am supporting the new clause.

Julian Huppert: It is a great pleasure to follow the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley). I also want to pay huge tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). It has been a great pleasure to work with her during the passage of the Bill, and her speech today set the scene extremely well. I pay tribute to her, although I am not sure whether that will help or hinder her future plans. I thought that she did extremely well.
	There are two issues that we need to debate today. One is the principle of whether we should allow humanists to conduct weddings; the other relates to the process of
	how we might get there. This is all made much more complicated because our marriage laws are incredibly complicated. They have exceptions and exemptions all over the place. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who speaks for the Church of England, and who I imagine knows the Marriage Act 1949 quite well, has spoken of how the rules are all tied to places. Section 26 of the Act states that marriages may be solemnised in
	“a registered building…in the office of a superintendent registrar”,
	and
	“on approved premises”.
	It also permits
	“a marriage according to the usages of the Society of Friends (commonly called Quakers)”
	and
	“a marriage between two persons professing the Jewish religion according to the usages of the Jews”.
	So we already have an exception and, as far as I can tell, the world has not fallen apart since those provisions were passed in 1949. They have worked without any problems. There are other areas of marriage law that are just complicated. We do not have a simple, clear system, and we are not going to get one as a result of any legislation that we pass today. That will involve further work.
	Let me turn first to the question of principle. Is there a desire to allow humanists to conduct weddings? This was mentioned by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt). If any Member here in the Chamber disagrees with the principle of humanists being allowed to conduct weddings, I would be grateful if they would intervene on me to say so. If no one expresses such a view, we will take it that there is no dissent on that principle.

James Duddridge: The hon. Gentleman is presuming; the fact those people who are currently in the Chamber do not express disagreement with him does not mean that he is right or that they all agree. That is blatantly obvious.

Mike Weatherley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. He is absolutely right to suggest that we cannot speculate accurately about the views of the people who are not in the Chamber. It is clear, however, that no strong views have been expressed that challenge the principle of holding humanist weddings, and I hope that that will be useful if this is discussed further in another place. There has not been a strong chorus of speeches here expressing disagreement with the principle. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the views of all 650 Members have not been taken into account, however. It would be helpful to know whether the Secretary of State supports humanist weddings in principle. She is welcome to intervene on me to give me her view on that. There is a desire for this change among the general public. Indeed, most people I have spoken to have been surprised to learn that humanist weddings are not allowed.
	There are problems with how the process would work. People who had a humanist wedding would have to have a register office wedding first. Some registrars are very helpful, and make it easy for that to happen. They make it a seamless experience. Others, however, are difficult. They ensure, for example, that the events
	take place in different locations, thus breaking up the ceremony, to the detriment of people who should be having one of the happiest moments of their life. Some people who have a humanist wedding celebration do not have a legal wedding. I presume they know that they are not legally married, but that can cause problems for them. So there are concerns about the way in which the process works at the moment.
	We know that this is a pro-marriage step. We have heard a lot from the Government and the Minister to say that the aim of the whole Bill is to support marriage. We know that that is what it does. We know that in Scotland between 2005 and 2011 there was a very large increase in the number of humanist weddings—the figure I have for the increase is 2,404—and there was a small decrease of 418 in civil weddings. Overall, that is a very large number of extra weddings. That is surely something that a pro-marriage Government would thoroughly want to support.

Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman is making some strong points. Anecdotally, in my constituency, a former member of the Welsh Assembly who is a humanist celebrant tells me that from her experience, if the provisions were made legal, the numbers would increase. She certainly sees a demand from the people of Cardiff South and Penarth.

Julian Huppert: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I should declare that I am a member of the British Humanist Association and an officer of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, and I have spoken to a number of people who have confirmed that there is a demand for this to happen. People wish to do humanist marriage and there does not have to be a majority before we think that it is the right thing to do.
	What are the problems? This takes us to the process of how to get there. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury, and others have asserted that this would unpick the lock. What I never heard—perhaps we will hear it from the Minister—is exactly why the locks that protect faith groups would be unpicked by allowing humanists to act as registrars for a wedding. It is really not clear. I have heard it implied that it is because this would involve celebrants and it would not happen at a registered place. We have heard that Jews and Quakers are already exempt from the requirement to have a registered place. If the lock has already been unpicked by that, why should it be a problem? We have simply not heard any detailed analysis; it seems that people are saying things because they have been told that they are true. That is not really good enough.
	I am concerned about the process that has brought us here. The Second Church Estates Commissioner—sadly, he is not in his place—suggested that the proposal was put through at the last minute and there was not enough time to deal with it adequately. I tabled my amendment initially on 5 February, immediately after Second Reading. I vividly remember it because I was slightly annoyed that somebody else had tabled another amendment before I had even got to the Table for mine. I was delighted that it received support from across the House
	and that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) led on it in Committee with the support of the Labour Front-Bench team.
	There was time from 5 February to make comments, and comments were made. There was detailed discussion, for example, between the British Humanist Association and Government officials. A couple of comments were made about how the provision would fit in with the locks and, interestingly, about its breadth. My original amendment would have allowed all approved organisations to participate, with a few safeguards, and did not specify humanism. The Government advice from the meetings with officials was that that should be changed. I know that the Minister disagrees, but it is entirely consistent with the letter and I was very specifically told by the BHA that it was given the advice to limit the provision to humanism.
	I am happy to read out again the relevant section from the Minister’s letter:
	“I note the changes that have been made to narrow the scope of the amendments to cover humanist organisations only, as we discussed.”
	The letter went on to say that
	“we remain of the view that”
	humanist ceremonies
	“cannot be dealt with in isolation”.
	That is simply not consistent with the idea that the Government had no role in this.

Maria Miller: I am sorry, but I must complete what the letter sent by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), said. It went on to state clearly that
	“the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is the wrong mechanism to effect the changes to marriage law that you desire. Therefore the Government is unable to support your amendments.”
	I am quoting directly from the letter. That clearly shows no opaqueness in the situation. I think that the hon. Gentleman’s previous comments were not entirely consistent with what is written in the letter.

Julian Huppert: I thank the right hon. Lady for reading out the rest of the letter, and I am happy for anybody to see it; I see that her Parliamentary Private Secretary has copies of it. She is right that it did not say that the Government supported the amendment or that they had another way of delivering it; it does not say, “Here are amendments that could make it work.” It says that the Government do not support the change because it is the wrong mechanism; it does not say, “We see you have now reduced the scope and we are very worried about this because we think you should broaden it back out again to be ECHR-compliant.” It is quite clear that the strong impression formed by the BHA from the meetings—I am sure there will be minutes—is that it was given strong advice to tighten the amendment. If that is not the case, it is hard to understand why it would choose to change the original version, which is obviously available for anyone to read. There has been ample time for the Attorney-General to consider the new clause, to be consulted on it and to be asked for his ruling on whether it would accord with the European convention on human rights. Strangely, however, that did not happen until the very last moment.
	There have been other meetings. For instance, we had a detailed discussion with the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), and I thank him for his time. As he will no doubt recall, the objections that were expressed did not centre on the fact that the new clause would make the whole Bill non-compliant with the convention, but there was talk of the cost of updating the computer system to allow an extra field for humanist weddings. He is nodding. A number of other issues were raised: for example, concern was expressed about the possibility that the measure would allow humanists to conduct weddings out of doors, which members of other faiths are not allowed to do under our marriage law unless they are Jews or Quakers.
	I find it truly bizarre that if there is concern about challenges with regard to the proposals before us, there is not fundamental concern about challenges to legislation under which the rules governing Jews and Quakers differ from those governing any other group. We have plenty of legislation that singles out the Church of England and the Church of Wales, because they are, or were, connected to the state. I would be grateful if the Minister, or anyone else, could tell me how many times the fact that Jews and Quakers are listed, but not Hindus, Sikhs or any other group, has been subject to a legal challenge. In fact, that simply has not happened.
	I respect the Attorney-General’s position, but I do not understand how he can have formed his opinions. I hope that we will be able to see a detailed analysis, from him or from the Minister via him, explaining exactly what the objections are. Above all, however, I believe passionately that the law could be constructive. The Government do not have to agree with humanist weddings, and they do not have to agree that this is the best way to legislate, but if they are acting in good faith in relation to the concerns that are being raised, I hope that they will say not just what the problems are but how they could be fixed, because many of us want them to be fixed.
	I do not mind whether this wording is retained or other wording is introduced. I do not mind if an amendment is tabled that merely adds an extra line specifying humanists beneath the words
	“professing the Jewish religion according to the usages of the Jews”.
	I do not mind if the Government present, or find time for, another Bill to deal with the issue. I simply want humanist weddings to take place. I hope that the Minister and the Attorney-General will not just erect barriers, but will help this Parliament to do what it clearly wants to do.

Stephen Williams: I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) in paying tribute to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). In Committee, the debate took place the other way around: I spoke to the amendment first, and she spoke second.
	It has been a pleasure to work across and among parties on this issue, because it is not a divisive issue. We all genuinely want to correct what we consider an anomaly in the law. I am, however, deeply disappointed that we have found ourselves where we are today. As my
	hon. Friend said, the Second Reading debate took place on 5 February, and the sitting of the Bill Committee during which I proposed the original amendment took place on 12 March. I know that two Departments are considering the Bill, and that No. 10 and the Deputy Prime Minister have been involved as well, but there has been quite a lot of time for the issues to be resolved.
	It is disappointing that today, almost at the eleventh hour and 59 minutes, the magic bullet, or nuclear weapon, of the Attorney-General has been wheeled out to tell us that the new clause falls foul of the European convention on human rights. That was never put to us on Second Reading or in Committee, or during the many bilateral private discussions which have taken place between the various parties and Ministries that have been involved in putting the new clause together.
	Other, spurious, objections have been made at various times. It has been said, for instance, that the new clause would create an exception. However, as a number of people have pointed out, the law in England and Wales already makes exceptions for the Jewish community and for Quakers. Even more spurious objections have been presented, and leaked to the Daily Mail. Another thing that I find deeply disappointing is that both the Daily Mail and The Sun specifically named both the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and me as being in favour of Jedi weddings—or the pagan ceremonies in Scotland about which we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who speaks for the Church of England.

Jake Berry: The force is not with them.

Stephen Williams: Indeed; the force is not with those arguments!
	The other argument that has been put forward is that this Bill is the wrong vehicle at the wrong time. I ask this of the Government Front-Bench team: if not now, when? Marriage Bills are not introduced in this place very often. I am sure the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will correct me if my chronology is wrong, but I think that since the Reformation there was a marriage Bill in the reign of George III to deal with clandestine marriages, there was civil registration in 1837, divorce was legalised in 1857 and there was one marriage law in the 20th century, which was in 1949—and that is it in the whole sweep of hundreds of years of history of this Parliament debating law. This is our opportunity in the first decade of this century to try to get it right.

Chris Bryant: There was more legislation before that as well, not least the Book of Common Prayer, which lays down specific aspects. My main point, however, is that the Hardwicke Act of 1753 tried to rectify the situation that people did not need a Church of England vicar, a minister of religion or a building in order to get married, and that all they needed to do was plight their troth. That is why the situation was tidied up. Unfortunately, a near-monopoly was then given to one religion, and the Quakers and the Jews allowed in at that point.

Stephen Williams: I suppose I did tempt the hon. Gentleman to intervene, although I did also say “since the Reformation”. As a genealogist in my spare time, I am also very familiar with the Hardwicke Act of 1753.
	So, to return to my point, if not now, when? The Government have not addressed that question to our satisfaction. Instead, we are left with a suspicion that there is no good will and no intention to allow a clear pathway towards humanist weddings being given legal status.
	The new clause has been very carefully drafted and redrafted since the Committee stage to take account of the objections, of which we were aware at that time. It clearly says that this right will only be granted to an organisation that is a
	“registered charity…advancing…the non-religious belief known as humanism”.
	It also says the registered charity must have existed for five years and the Registrar-General must be satisfied it is “of good repute.” We have heard of many other locks in the course of our discussions of this Bill, but this is surely a triple-lock that ought to satisfy everyone.
	When we were considering whether opposite-sex couples should be allowed to enter into civil partnerships, it was asked where the evidence was that people would want to do that. In the context of this new clause, there is clear evidence that there is demand for humanist weddings north of the border, where they are now the third most popular means of getting married, and some of the people who are getting married in Scotland are from England and Wales, because they cannot legally do so in Bristol or anywhere else in England or Wales. This new clause certainly meets a need, therefore.
	Our current law is completely out of step with society. Sometimes Parliament has to give a lead and bring the public with it. In this instance, however, we are in danger being seen as behind the grain of public opinion and of public demand for humanist marriage to be legalised. I hope that at the last minute, when the Secretary of State speaks in a few moments, we will grasp victory out of the jaws of defeat.
	What I do not want to hear from the Secretary of State is the same old situation from the Government of “Heads we win, tails you lose.” I hope we do not get into that situation. There is good will among parliamentarians of all parties to legalise humanist weddings, and I hope we will take a step towards achieving that today.

Maria Miller: We have had a robust and impassioned debate on a subject about which people feel very strongly. I must make it clear from the start that it is not, and continues not to be, the objective of this Bill to extend marriage to belief groups, which is, to all intents and purposes, what many of the amendments in this group would do. I do, however, join other Members in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is representing the Opposition on these proposals, because she spoke with passion and eloquence about the importance of humanist ceremonies in celebrating marriage.
	The hon. Lady is right to say that for many people who undertake such ceremonies, they can be an important way of marking and celebrating such an event, but it is important to make the point that neither is this the time nor is the Bill the place to make the sorts of changes she is advocating, unless she wants to risk the objective of the Bill, which is to extend marriage to same-sex couples.
	Humanists can already marry, but same-sex couples cannot, and that is the unfairness that the Bill is designed to remove.
	I shall have to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) by saying that I think is some principled opposition to the amendments in this group. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) stated some strong and principled objections. The Government’s argument, which I will set out, also contains principled objections.
	New clause 15, new schedule 1 and amendments 19, 20 and 21 are intended to enable humanists, but no other belief organisation, to conduct legally recognised marriages in ceremonies according to their beliefs. That is not a simple change but a fundamental shift in the system of regulation that safeguards the institution of marriage. The amendments would create a manifestly unfair and inequitable position that was vulnerable to legal challenge—a point that the Attorney-General made eloquently in his interventions. They would also undermine the quadruple lock in the Bill designed to protect religious organisations that do not want to conduct same-sex marriages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury pointed out.
	The amendments would create a new route to marriage—a two-tiered system—and we simply cannot support them. They would unravel the foundations of marriage law and require the introduction of a celebrant-based system for marriage, instead of the current buildings-based system. There would be far-reaching consequences to making such a fundamental change. For example, a move away from a premises-based system to a celebrant-based one would mean that any organisation that successfully applied could hold marriages wherever it wished. In Scotland, where there is a celebrant-based system, members of organisations that we in England and Wales would not traditionally associate with undertaking marriage have been given the authority to do so. Hon. Members have already mentioned the White Eagle Lodge, pagans and the Spiritualists’ National Union, which have been able to conduct marriages. It is entirely up to the authorities in Scotland to enable that to happen, but the House must understand that that would be the potential outcome if the amendments were incorporated into the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) made several important points about Scots law, the Council of Europe and whether there would be an issue for Scotland. Scots law is not incompatible with the ECHR, as other belief organisations can conduct legal marriages. That is our point, and in a way he has proved my point for me: the amendments would not enable that, that is why they would leave the Bill in a very difficult position.

Julian Huppert: There are many points on which I would love to tackle the Secretary of State, including the idea that the amendments are allowing everybody in one version, and not enough people in another, and that either way they fail the Goldilocks test. She makes the case, as I understand it, that if we allowed a route that was not premises-based, it would mean completely redoing marriage law. Does she accept that marriage law already
	has routes for Jews and for Quakers that are not premises-based, and that to have a route that is not premises-based simply cannot fundamentally weaken marriage law, as it would have done so since 1949 and before then?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend reads my mind, because I was about to go on to that very point. He is right: it is important that we recognise that those of the Jewish faith and Quakers have a particular position, and we have been accommodating their needs since marriage was first regulated in this country back in 1753, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned. That is a long-standing historical arrangement designed to respect and accommodate ancient and religious traditions. My hon. Friend will understand that because it has been established in time, it cannot be changed retrospectively and it is therefore entirely consistent with the position set out by the Attorney-General.

Kelvin Hopkins: I do not follow the right hon. Lady’s logic. She says that the Jews and the Quakers have a particular position, which has been accommodated. Why cannot we have a particular position, which is accommodated too?

Maria Miller: Because the existing arrangement pre-dates the European convention on human rights, as the hon. Gentleman knows. That is the anomaly. Furthermore, it is not legally possible to restrict—

Crispin Blunt: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Maria Miller: May I make a tiny bit of progress before taking my hon. Friend’s intervention?
	Furthermore, it is not legally possible to restrict the approved organisations approach only to humanism. There can be no basis to justify a difference of treatment between one belief organisation and another, and if we did so we would vulnerable to legal challenge—the very point that the Attorney-General made. If the amendment were accepted, I would have to consider whether I could sign a section 19(1)(a) statement, indicating that in my view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights, on the introduction of the Bill in another place. I would probably have to sign a section 19(1)(b) statement that I cannot state that in my view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention, because of the different treatment of humanists and other belief organisations. That is clear, it is a statement of fact and it is entirely consistent with the situation outlined by the Attorney-General.
	As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, the amendment would clearly make the Bill incompatible with the European convention on human rights. This is a complicated issue that could be looked at further in the other place, but I want to make it clear to the House today that if the issue is discussed in the Lords, further information can be provided if that is requested and required. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, and to place a copy of my letter in the Library, setting out the legal objections offered to the House today. I hope that
	would help to inform proceedings in the other place. I would be happy to copy the letter to the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

Kate Green: May we ask that that letter sets out in detail the Government’s objections in the context of the convention on human rights, and that there will be no gaps? It seems to us that new objections have emerged even in the course of the debate this afternoon, so I would be grateful for the right hon. Lady’s assurance that that will be a comprehensive statement of the Government’s concerns in relation to the European convention on human rights.

Maria Miller: I am happy to say that the letter would be a comprehensive statement of the concerns that I have. I have covered many of those today, but I will consider whether there are any that I have not included for reasons of time. I am happy to be as helpful as I can.

Crispin Blunt: My right hon. Friend has advanced the rather preposterous proposition that the United Kingdom’s accession to the European convention on human rights is now acting to limit the rights of members of our population—humanists—to conduct marriages. That goes to the central point. I will be happy if she can give the House the assurance that the Government are in principle in favour of humanists conducting marriage, and that they will use the resources at their disposal to find a way of getting that on to the statute book. If it is not going to happen in the course of the Bill—I do not want the Bill delayed, any more than anyone else—at least the Government can make that statement of policy intent.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend may not have fully understood the argument being put forward by the Attorney-General. The issue is that the amendments discriminate in favour of one group over another. Humanists are being singled out for particular treatment. I am very happy to set out the argument fully. This is a different situation from—

Crispin Blunt: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Maria Miller: Will my hon. Friend allow me to respond to his intervention before he intervenes on me again?
	This is a particularly difficult area. Marriage law and the principles behind it have evolved over many centuries, as the hon. Member for Rhondda pointed out. Yes, there are anomalies in some areas, but we are talking about a particular set of amendments relating to humanists and the problem that would be faced if they were incorporated in the Bill. It is not the Government’s policy to extend marriage in the way that my hon. Friend is talking about. Humanists can already get married. The Bill is all about ensuring that people who cannot currently get married—same-sex couples—are able to do so. That should be the focus of our discussions.
	I also draw hon. Members’ attention to the confusing and contradictory nature of the amendments. Is humanism non-religious, as suggested in the definition of approved organisations in new clause 15? If so, would the protections in the Bill for religious organisations apply? There was some confusion about that, particularly as to whether
	this would allow the marriage of same-sex couples. Or is humanism religious, as suggested in amendments 20 and 21, which add reference to approved organisations to the definition of a “relevant religious organisation”? Are we clear what humanism means in legislative terms, and who the definition would catch? The amendments simply highlight some of the problems that would arise from trying to shoehorn a new category of marriage into the current legal framework.

Julian Huppert: I do not think that the Secretary of State quite addressed the question put by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), which was whether in principle—if there was a way that did not involve the Bill, did not have ECHR problems and did not cause any other problems—she and the Government would support the concept of humanist weddings.
	I am really rising because I am so shocked at the concerns about the extra amendments, which again were inserted at the suggestion of Government officials. The BHA has changed this to suit the Government, and the Government then complain about the changes.

Dawn Primarolo: Mr. Huppert, it is not necessary to restate at length a previous question. I remind you that interventions should be brief, not a series of questions. It would help enormously if we stuck to those conventions.

Maria Miller: I can be very clear. It is not coalition policy to undertake the actions that the hon. Gentleman outlines. I have already dealt with the comments made about the work of my officials. Most individuals who have been dealing with my officials have found their work incredibly diligent and helpful. I am sorry that he does not feel that that has been the case in this instance.
	New clause 14 would create a new status of civil union and repeal the Marriage Act 1949. That would prevent the creation of any new marriages: put simply, England and Wales would no longer recognise marriage within the law. It seems that the intention here is that civil unions would replace marriages—a change that would affect everyone who wants to marry in England and Wales in the future. That is simply not a position that the Government can support.
	Conversely, the Bill is about strengthening marriage, and the Government strongly oppose any measure that would undermine marriage. New clause 14 would damage the important institution of marriage beyond repair. It would to all intents and purposes abolish it. I therefore note and welcome the intention of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) not to press the new clause to a vote. It is not something that we could support if he were to do so.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the Secretary of State for that kind acknowledgment. The new clause was very much an attempt to show that we should be separating the state recognition of marriage from the religious. That is the point, not what it is called in the end. We are changing the institution of marriage through the Bill anyway, so to do so properly and more succinctly is something that should be explored in the other place.

Maria Miller: I do not believe that we are changing marriage. Marriage is one state, which we are enabling a new set of individuals to access, so I do not agree with
	my hon. Friend’s argument. This is not about changing marriage; it is about ensuring that more people can get into it.

Greg Mulholland: Will my right hon. Friend give way, briefly?

Maria Miller: I will make some progress, because we have another string of amendments to get through.
	The effect of new clause 18 and amendments 58 and 59 would be to require all marriages not conducted through a religious ceremony to be called civil marriages. The intention seems to be to separate marriage conducted through civil and religious ceremonies into two distinct institutions. Let me be clear that there is one legal institution of marriage in England and Wales that couples —all couples, we hope, as a result of the Bill—can join through either a religious or a civil ceremony. The new clause would create a separate type of marriage without any consideration of the legal impact. The legal consequences of such a new distinction are completely unclear.
	New clause 18 contains no reference to same-sex couples, so it does not seem to require that such couples should be limited to access to civil marriage only, which might be thought to have been the purpose of distinguishing between religious and civil marriage for legal purposes. That is simply not something the Government can support. We all want couples to be able to access the important and single institution of marriage, and that is what the Bill is about. The Bill has one clear and straightforward purpose: opening up the existing institution of marriage to same-sex couples. It is not designed for the sort of fundamental changes proposed in the new clause.

Simon Hughes: Does the Minister not accept, however, that there are many people who believe that the civil status of coming together in marriage should be open to straight and gay couples alike, but that people of faith and faith groups should be free to define what they understand as marriage? Some of them would permit same-sex marriage, but some of them take a different view and would not.

Maria Miller: I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend says and think that is what the Bill delivers. It delivers the ability of civil marriage to accommodate same-sex couples and enables religious organisations that wish to opt into that to do so, but allows others not to if that is what they choose. That is an important and fundamental principle of the Bill that I think reflects what he has just said.
	I believe that the changes proposed in the amendments are an unnecessary and potentially unhelpful diversion from the important objective we are trying to achieve: removing the unfairness that excludes same-sex couples from being able to marry. We must remain focused on that objective and not be sidelined into discussions on other issues at this point. I ask hon. Members not to press these amendments, so that we can proceed to discuss the next group.

Kate Green: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this interesting and, at times, passionate debate. I pay particular tribute to the hon.
	Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who tabled the amendment that led us to new clause 15, and the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who first tabled it in Committee, for the work we have been able to do across parties to bring the proposal to the Floor of the House this afternoon.
	Despite the fact that the proposal has been before the House in some form or other since 5 February, as the hon. Member for Cambridge pointed out, it seems that the legal doubts expressed this afternoon by the Attorney-General have come to us rather late in the day. That does not mean that we do not take them extremely seriously; of course we do, but it would have been helpful to know that discussions were taking place with officials, whether or not they were proactively suggesting that such changes to the original proposal would help to strengthen it. The fact that discussions took place some weeks ago means that it is a matter of particular regret that the legal difficulties with the proposal were not highlighted earlier.
	The Secretary of State said that my amendment and, I think, others in the group were unnecessary. For humanists, it is not unnecessary at all. Yes, they can choose to have a civil marriage and a humanist ceremony, but they do not have available to them a ceremony that they feel would properly recognise them as marrying one another and making that public commitment in front of family and friends. That is the discrimination that we seek to address. However, I take very seriously her wish, which she knows we share very strongly, to see this Bill proceed. We do not want it to be delayed or have its development and progress inhibited by arguments about these proposals.
	I want to pick up on one or two of the objections that were raised not only by Ministers but by other hon. Members around the Chamber, suggesting that there are still genuine uncertainties about what is and is not provided for in current law and what we now seek to achieve. If the Secretary of State is willing to come forward with a statement of the Government’s legal concerns, that would be extremely helpful in properly facing off all the objections that have been raised in time for them to be understood and considered before the Bill is debated in the House of Lords. We do not want a re-run of objections arriving late or being raised without justification. It is clear from what has been said today that many hon. Members would like the Government’s position to be fully argued in good time for a fully informed debate in the House of Lords.
	Some Members, particularly the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the Secretary of State, have said repeatedly that these proposals in some way undermine the quadruple lock that has been put in place. The Secretary of State suggested that that is because it is not clear whether the protections that it affords would apply to humanists, and if so, that might undermine the protections for religious organisations. If so, it would be extremely helpful to understand exactly how that is. We would be grateful if the Secretary of State fully clarified that in the letter that she says she will make available to the House.
	A misunderstanding has come up repeatedly this afternoon. We recognise that the system in England is different from the system in Scotland, which registers
	celebrants. The system in England is not based only on the registration of premises for Jews and Quakers, for example. There is no requirement for them to hold their ceremonies in certain premises, but they are required to hold ceremonies in accordance with their usages. What is more, the amendment would not attach registration to celebrants. It is about registering organisations, and one form of organisation in particular—that which is a belief organisation, a charitable organisation or a humanist organisation that secures the approval and authorisation of the Registrar General. It is very clear which kind of institution we are trying to cover.
	The most serious objection is the human rights objection, which, sadly, only emerged at the beginning of this afternoon. I would be grateful if any hon. Member who participated during the earlier stages of the Bill and who remembers differently could correct me, but I do not recall the human rights objection being raised at any point before this afternoon. Of course it is vital that we take account of the Attorney-General’s concerns and advice on this matter; it would be utterly irresponsible of us not to do so. However, even the Attorney-General’s advice changed over the course of this afternoon. At the beginning of the afternoon, he said that there was a problem with the proposal because it could apply so widely that any organisation, including a society for the promotion of tiddlywinks, might potentially be discriminated against if it were not authorised to carry out marriages as well. I think that he rowed back from that later on and acknowledged that only belief organisations would be authorised. He was right to say that the possibility of discrimination between different belief organisations is the central human rights issue that must be addressed.

Dominic Grieve: Let me make it quite that it has to be a belief organisation because unless there are some grounds for belief, I assume that there is no reason for carrying out a ceremony. I am sorry if my point sounded flippant, because it was not intended to be. My point was that belief organisations can be very wide in their scope and are certainly not confined to humanism.

Kate Green: I appreciate the Attorney-General’s concern that there could be human rights challenges on those grounds. It would be useful to know how he assesses the chances of such a challenge being successful and to understand on what basis a challenge might be argued. It would also be useful to know what precedent there is of such challenges being successful elsewhere.
	I am prepared to wait for the fully analysed opinion to be presented to the House. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to provide that in good time before the Bill proceeds through the House of Lords. I hope that she will take note of our interest in having a proactive opinion, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) said, that identifies how any defects in the proposal could be cured, as the Attorney-General has mentioned. Given the commitment from the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9
	 — 
	Conversion of civil partnership into marriage

Julian Huppert: I beg to move amendment 15, page10, line24,at end add—
	‘(9) Where a civil partnership formed under part 1, section 96 of the Civil Partnership Act (Civil Partnership with former spouse) is converted into a marriage under this section—
	(a) the civil partnership ends on the conversion, and
	(b) if both partners so elect, the resulting marriage is to be treated as having subsisted since the marriage dissolved under Schedule 2 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was formed.’.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government amendments 25 to 39.
	Amendment 49,in schedule 4, page33, leave out from line 42 to line 4 on page 34 and insert—
	‘(2) Omit sub-paragraph (1).’.
	Government amendments 40 to 47.
	Amendment 13,in schedule 5, page36, leave out lines 10 to 37 and insert—
	‘Section 4 (successful applications): for subsections (2) and (3) substitute—
	“(2) The certificate is to be a full gender recognition certificate if—
	(a) the applicant is not a civil partner and does not request an interim gender recognition certificate,
	(b) or the applicant is a civil partner who does not request an interim gender recognition certificate and the Panel has deceided to issue a full gender recognition certificate to the other party to the civil partnership.
	(3) The certificate is to be an interim gender recognition certificate if either—
	(a) the applicant is a party to a protected civil partnership and the other party to the civil partnership has not made an application under section 1(1).
	(b) the applicant is a party to a protected civil partnership and the Panel had decided not to issue a full gender recognition certificate to the other party to the civil partnership,
	(c) or the applicants is party to a protected marriage, requests an interim gender recognition certificate and the application includes a statutory declaration of consent from the applicant’s spouse.
	(3A) If a gender recognition panel issues a full gender recognition certificate under this section to an applicant who is a party to a marriage or civil partnership, the panel must give the applicant’s spouse notice of the issue of the certificate.”.’.
	Amendment 14,schedule 5, page39,line39, leave out
	‘(by virtue of section 4(2)(b) or (4A)’.
	Amendment 18,in schedule 5, page40,line18, at end insert—
	‘One-off compensation payment to couples whose marriages were annulled to permit a person to obtain a gender recognition certificate
	9A Schedule 4 (Effect on Marriage): at beginning insert—
	“(1) This section applies to a formerly married couple whose marriage was annulled in order to permit one or both partners to that marriage to obtain a full gender recognition certificate, provided that—
	(a) the marriage was annulled following the coming into force of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and
	(b) the formerly married couple either—
	(a) (i) formed a civil partnership with each other within six months of the annulment of their marriage, and continue to maintain their civil partnership, or
	(ii) have continued to live together as a couple in the same household since the annulment of their marriage.
	(2) The couple shall be compensated from public funds to the amount of £1,000 by way of apology for the distress and costs incurred as a result of the annulment of their marriage.”.’.
	Amendment 22,in schedule 5, page40,line18, at end insert—
	‘Reinstatement of marriages annulled to permit a person to obtain a gender recognition certificate
	9A Schedule 4 (Effect on Marriage): at beginning insert—
	“(1) This section applies to a formerly married couple whose marriage was annulled in order to permit one or both partners to that marriage to obtain a full gender recognition certificate, provided that—
	(a) the couple have continued to live together in the same household since the annulment of their marriage, and
	(b) both partners to the former marriage give notice to a registrar that they wish their marriage to be reinstated.
	(2) When notice is given under (1)(b), the marriage shall be reinstated with effect from the date the couple give notice to have it reinstated.”.’.
	Amendment 16,in schedule 5, page40, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—
	‘(a) the registration of qualifying marriages,
	(b) the registration of qualifying civil partnerships,
	(c) the issue of replacement marriage certificates displaying the new details of the parties to the marriage but maintaining the original date,
	(d) the issue of replacement birth certificates where the application is shown on the certificate, with the consent of the other parent named and—
	(i) where the child has reached 16 years of age, the consent of the child to whom the birth certificate relates,
	(ii) where the child has not yet reached the age of 16 years, the consent of the other parent named on the birth certificate, where present.’.
	Government amendment 48.
	Amendment 12,schedule 7, page50,line37, at end insert—
	‘24A Section 12 (grounds on which a marriage is voidable): omit paragraph (h).’.

Julian Huppert: We now move on to a rather different subject, but it is still an important one that affects a number of people greatly. A range of issues apply specifically to people who change their gender, who transition between genders or who are transgender. There may not be a huge number of people in that category and they may be a small minority, but they have been subject to some of the worst discrimination over many years and decades. Indeed, that has happened partly because there are not as many people in that group as in other groups.
	Another group that we will not talk about specifically today is that of people who are intersex and who do not associate with one gender for a range of reasons. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has tabled some amendments to clarify the position for such people. I assume that it is clear that the Government’s intention is that marriage will be equal and will not exclude those who do not identify as male or female. I assume that there is no intention to discriminate. We therefore need to focus on the specific issues for the small group of people who are transgender.
	Last Friday was IDAHO—the international day against homophobia and transphobia—and I spoke to people who have suffered such discrimination at an event in my constituency. My constituency is perhaps uniquely blessed in having not only a number of people who are out about the fact that they are transgender—many people, for understandable reasons, are cagey about admitting that they are transgender—but a number of transgender people who have been elected to the local council. Indeed, we had the first transgender mayor in the country. She was very proud of that role.
	There is far too much transphobia, which many people have to face. Like other hon. Members, I have worked with Trans Media Watch, which keeps an eye on the truly disgusting articles that appear in the press about people who are transgender. I heard a number of awful stories at a recent event. To give one of the many examples, Lucy Meadows, a primary school teacher, killed herself after a very nasty article came out in the Daily Mail shortly after she transitioned. That is not acceptable in society, and we need to make a stand against it.
	Sometimes, such things happen because people wish to be actively nasty. Sometimes, problems are caused for people who are transgender because of problems with the legislation that we produce. We do not always think of people who are transgender when we are writing legislation and there can be unintended consequences. I do not believe that this Government or the last Government have ever intended to discriminate against people who are transgender, but it has happened by accident.
	We have had a few specialist debates—for instance, about which gender of police officer should search people who are transgender. I proposed that we should just ask people whom they wished to be search by, which would resolve the problem.
	One problem that many transgender people face is when their marriage is stolen from them. A number of people are in a perfectly stable and loving married couple, one of whom wishes to transition. I know a number of people in that category. As it happens, the ones I know have been male to female transitions, but that is not uniquely so at all. Under the current law, for somebody to transition, they have to end the marriage. We, the state, say to people who still love each other, “You must get a divorce and break your marriage.” They were allowed a civil partnership when those were introduced, but they still have to go through that process, which is quite an upsetting thing to do.
	There is some good journalism about transgender issues. There was a piece in The Guardian a couple of weeks ago about one of my constituents, Sarah Brown, who is a city councillor in Cambridge. She and her partner Sylvia, who were married, still live together and are still in a loving couple. The article states:
	“For Sylvia, the toughest part of Sarah’s transition was being forced to replace their marriage with a civil partnership. ‘I thought it wouldn’t make a difference,’ says Sylvia. ‘I’m a scientist, I’m rational. It’s just a bit of paper, but it made us cry.’ In contrast to the poetry of the wedding vows, they found the language of the civil partnership ceremony like a business arrangement.
	Sylvia and Sarah hope to remarry when the marriage (same-sex couples) bill becomes law, but their original marriage can never be restored in the eyes of the law. ‘When the registrar pronounced us civil partners it felt like the state was kicking us in the teeth,’ adds Sarah.”
	That is what we as a country did—not deliberately in any way, but by accident—and many people feel the same. That is why I have tabled a range of amendments and worked with colleagues who care about these issues, of whom there are a number in all parties, to see what we can do to fix this.
	We can now make some amends, because some of the couples affected will now be able to move to a marriage, as Sylvia and Sarah talked about doing. Amendment 15 simply argues that when such couples convert back from a civil partnership into a marriage, if both wish to do so, they should be able to count the marriage as having continued during the gap. In that way, we would be saying that, because we took their marriage from them for that period, we would let them count as having been married even though in fact they had to go through a civil partnership and then back again.
	The amendment might have all sorts of effects, including on pensions, although I do not think it would have any financial consequences on a scale that the Government should be concerned about. Mostly, it would have a moral effect on the couples involved. It would say to a couple who stayed together through a transition that their relationship continued and that we value it as such. I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I expect the Government to consider it carefully and I hope that some progress will be made either here or in the other place, so that we can provide some restoration for the people whom we forced to go through the process.
	I support amendments 18 and 22, which I believe that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will discuss later, as they would also take some steps in the right direction. Amendment 18 would provide £1,000 in compensation to people who lost their marriage, not because we value that stolen marriage at £1,000—that is not the point in any way—but to acknowledge that we forced people into something that we should not have forced them into, so causing them genuine emotional hardship. Amendment 22 is an alternative way to restore the lost marriages and does not go quite as far as amendment 15. The point that I wish to make is not about the exact details; it is that we need to make restoration for people who went through the process.
	None of the amendments is quite perfect. One person in a same-sex couple in a civil partnership might transition in future, in which case they would not be allowed to continue in that civil partnership. They would have the route of changing to a marriage available to them, so it is less of a concern, but it is a small anomaly.
	Amendment 15 seeks to right a wrong that we have caused. I fear, however, that we may make errors in the Bill, not because of any intent to get things wrong, but because of the consequences of complex issues working together. Amendments 13 and 14 deal with one such issue. Where a couple are married and one transitions, there is a requirement to have a gender recognition certificate. Under current provisions, their partner would have to agree to allow them to get that certificate. Therefore, if I am married to somebody and wish to transition and change my gender, they get to veto whether that is fully legally recognised. Why should that
	be? A relationship might have terminally broken down for some reason, in which case it is possibly heading towards divorce, but that may not be so. The couple might not wish to go through that, yet one person is allowed to say to the other, “You may not do this; you may not legally change your gender fully. You will have to force through a divorce, which can take a very long time.” We should try to avoid the spousal veto.

Mike Freer: Does my hon. Friend agree it is bizarre that a man or woman who is transitioning can have surgery and change their name but cannot have a gender realignment certificate without spousal approval?

Julian Huppert: I find it very bizarre. There are a number of anomalies in the whole process because of how it is set up, but a gender recognition certificate may be applied for only two years after someone has transitioned into the acquired gender full time, so there has already been quite a long time to try to sort out other issues. Amendments 13 and 14 would simply end the spousal veto, so that people who transition do not have to rely on their spouses to give approval. Some spouses will not give permission for that to happen.
	Amendment 16 deals with marriage and birth certificates when there are transgender issues. It argues that replacement marriage certificates should be available for people who have transitioned, so that we do not force them to be outed every time they have to show a marriage certificate. We would reissue a marriage certificate with the original date and new names. That is a simple thing, but it will make a big difference. Not everybody who has transitioned wants to be known as somebody who transitioned. Many people just want to be known by their new name and new gender, and they do not wish to explain their past in every case. They already face that often enough when dealing with various institutions and medical issues. We should not force people to out themselves every time that they need to present a marriage certificate.

Bob Stewart: There will be problems with police records, for example, if people change names like that, and that will cause a big problem.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. In many cases, of course, there is no problem, and there are technical ways in which the issue has been resolved. It is already possible for people to transition and the state manages to cope—income tax, HMRC and other systems manage to cope and each have detailed arrangements. I do not think that would pose a problem for somebody transitioning to avoid their previous criminal record, but it would avoid their being outed inadvertently or accidently, which is a genuine fear for a large number of transgender people.
	At the moment, a child’s birth certificate cannot be reissued on the parent’s transition. Again, that raises concerns about privacy and outing, not just for the transperson but for their families, for example, when applying for school places. Under the amendment, replacement birth certificates could be issued with the new gender and with the consent of the child once they have reached an age at which they are able to consent. Older children should clearly have some say in this.
	Such a provision would protect the privacy of the person who has transitioned where such information should not be revealed.
	Clause 12 relates to an interesting aspect of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which gives grounds to void a marriage. It states that a marriage can be voided if
	“the respondent is a person whose gender at the time of the marriage had become the acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”
	If somebody marries somebody who has already transitioned, they can at any point cancel the marriage on that ground. Technically, that applies only if the person did not know that their partner had transitioned, but the problem is that, if someone is not public about the fact that they have transitioned, they are at risk of their partner, at any time, saying, “I did not realise.” There would be little proof, unless we expect transpeople always to tell others.
	We could get rid of that anomaly and still allow normal divorce proceedings to be started. The marriage could still be ended if there was an incompatible breakdown when a person discovers the history of their partner—there would still be a way out for them if they feel they cannot continue—but we should remove the automatic sense that somebody has done something wrong simply by being transgender. That is a real concern. There have been such cases in Scotland—they were not to do with marriage, but with other sexual interactions—and there have been sex-by-fraud cases simply because somebody was transgender. We simply should not allow that to happen. Those are small and specific issues, but the proposals will make a difference to a persecuted minority within our country.
	Government amendments on pensions and transgender people are welcome. I thank the Government for making that step, which is welcomed by the trans community and is to be supported.
	Before I conclude, I want to highlight amendment 49, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I hope she does not mind my speaking to it before she does. The amendment would end a bizarre anomaly. If I marry somebody and die, they get a survivor’s pension related to the amount of time that I have spent in work. However, if I have a civil partnership with somebody and die, the payment they receive is related not to the time when I started work, but to the time when civil partnerships came into existence. That is bizarre. Any insurer would not know whether I would choose a marriage or civil partnership. It seems odd that one pension is backdated to when I started work, and the other goes only part way. It would make sense if both pensions dated back to the date of the marriage—I can understand the logic, although I do not believe that that is the right solution—but there is a blatant and odd inequality.
	Most employers pay no attention to the anomaly because they are keen to be helpful to their employees. Many of them can nominate people to whom they are not married to receive the survivor’s pension. However, we should not have such inequality written in law. I apologise to the hon. Lady for saying that before she has had a chance to do so.
	I hope that the Government take those issues seriously, because we can fix anomalies of the past and avoid making further ones in the present.

Caroline Lucas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). I will address many of the issues he has raised. As he said powerfully, the amendments seek to provide some small right to the dreadful wrong that has been done to those couples who were forced by the state to annul marriages in order for one of them to avail themselves of their most basic civil rights.
	Amendments 18 and 22 are in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who is unable to be in the Chamber today because he is attending the spring session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I gladly agreed to speak to the amendments as the second signatory, because I have long been concerned to see that injustice rectified.
	I shall provide the House with the case example that led the hon. Gentleman to table the amendments. His constituents have been married for 35 years as man and wife. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 forced them to annul their marriage, which they did in 2007, so that the male-to-female transsexual in the relationship could obtain a gender recognition certificate in her acquired gender and get on with her life. The legislation did not allow the couple to continue to be married even though they wanted that. Both were extremely clear that they wished to stay together and did not want a divorce. They had cared for, supported and loved each other as a married couple for more than 30 years, and wanted the care and support they mutually offered each other to continue in the years ahead. They wanted to keep their family together for their own sake and for the sakes of their children.
	Since being forced to annul their marriage, the couple have lived together as two women in a civil partnership. They entered into a civil partnership on the very same day their marriage ended and still live together, but they should never have been made to annul their marriage, even if an alternative legal mechanism was available in the form of a civil partnership. They have lived together continuously for 44 years and it is their marriage anniversary that they still celebrate. For many couples, annulment was deeply distressing and not something of mere technical and legal significance.
	As I think we would all recognise, reasons for marrying and making a public commitment are intensely personal and varied. For some, marriage is not just about legal practicalities, and the blunt replacement of one legal mechanism with another is not the end of the matter. Other hon. Members will have similar cases. The number of people involved is not large—a point I will come on to in a moment—but the injustice done to them is real. We ought to take this opportunity to go some way to righting the wrong done.
	What can the Government do to make amends? Amendment 18 proposes to require the Government to make a one-off compensation payment from public funds to couples whose marriages were annulled, to permit a person to obtain a gender recognition certificate and enter into or continue to maintain a civil partnership; or to those who have continued to live together as a couple in the same household since the annulment of their marriage, but who did not choose to go down the route of a civil partnership. It is a simple principle: married couples forced by the state to have an annulment that they did not want should be compensated by the Government by way of an apology for the distress and
	cost incurred as a result of the annulment of their marriage. The amendment proposes a nominal sum of £1,000. The public expenditure implications would be negligible—we know the numbers are small, as I will go on to explain in a moment. The £1,000 compensation payment would be far less than the cost for couples who have had to pay for a divorce and a civil partnership ceremony.
	A written question, answered by the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), the Minister with responsibility for equality, confirmed that 151 interim gender recognition certificates were made—the certificates given when someone seeking full legal recognition is in a pre-existing marriage. The interim certificate could be used as grounds for annulment. After annulment, a full certificate giving the long sought-after civil rights could then be issued. Some of those 151 couples will have gone on to divorce and continue to live with, or form civil partnerships with, their former spouses. It is only they who would be eligible for compensation under the amendment, so the cost would probably be no more than tens of thousands of pounds and could not, at the absolute maximum, be any more than £151,000. The financial implications of the amendment, therefore, are tiny to the point of being negligible. This is about a symbolic apology: the state apologising for having, as the hon. Member for Cambridge put it, stolen those marriages.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene on what is a very interesting contribution. Will she clarify a small point, but one that is of great significance to those in Northern Ireland? I am following the logic of her argument. Under schedule 2 to the Bill, those in England and Wales can avail themselves of same-sex marriage. As soon as they go to Northern Ireland, however, that marriage would have to be treated as a civil partnership. Is the logic of her argument that the state that passed the legislation must also compensate those who regard themselves as married couples in England and Wales, but become civil partners again in Northern Ireland?

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. Given that we are talking about a symbolic apology, it would be generous and appropriate for it to be offered in Northern Ireland too. My argument is not a narrow legal argument. A wrong was done. To the extent that the wrong was done by the Government, one can make an argument that the measure is relevant only to those who were living in the country at that time.

Lady Hermon: It is very generous of the hon. Lady to take a second intervention. Just to be clear, I was not making a recommendation that compensation be paid by the state. I was simply asking the hon. Lady whether her amendments would oblige the Government to pay compensation in the circumstances she outlined. Is the logic of her argument that she would advocate compensation in Northern Ireland? I certainly am not doing so.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. In that case, my answer is simple: yes, I would.
	Amendment 22 would remove any reference to compensation and deal specifically with the reinstatement of marriages in cases where couples had their marriages annulled, so that a person could obtain a gender recognition certificate and continue to live together without forming a civil partnership. In cases where civil partnerships were formed after forced annulment, I am pleased that the Bill provides some assistance. Under clause 9, a couple are permitted to convert their civil partnership into a marriage to be treated as having subsisted since the date the civil partnership was formed.
	Couples who were forced to annul a marriage and enter into a civil partnership will not be able to rewrite history—at least not legally—but it will almost be as if there was no break in their marriage, which of course they never wanted to annul in the first place. These are not the only cases, however, and we must ensure that all cases are covered. As a result, amendment 22 is designed to help couples who annulled their marriages so that one person could get a gender certificate, but who did not then enter into a civil partnership. As far as possible, the injustice that they have also faced must be addressed.
	When the issue was discussed in Committee, the Minister expressed sympathy for couples who had been required to make the difficult choice of whether to end their marriage to enable one of the parties to obtain gender recognition, but she said that she could not support an amendment that sought to reinstate marriages from the date they were annulled because of the difficulties that could be caused with any rights and responsibilities that the couple had accrued since their marriage was annulled—for example, retrospective entitlements to benefits and taxation.
	In order to help the Government and make some progress, in this version of the amendment, I and the hon. Member for York Central are proposing that reinstatement of the marriage be from the date that the couple gave notice to have it reinstated. This would address Ministers’ concern about retrospective legislation. It is not ideal. I would much prefer a fully retrospective measure, but given what the Minister said in Committee, it would be better than nothing for this small but greatly wronged—I still believe—group of people. Couples were forced to make a distressing and appalling choice, largely because policy on same-sex marriage was lagging so far behind what was right and just. I hope that we can use the window of opportunity in this historic Bill to do the right thing.

Margot James: I congratulate the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)on their work in this important area. A couple in Stourbridge came to me two years ago, one of them having undergone gender reassignment treatment and surgery. They were very distressed that their marriage had been annulled and did not want to enter into a civil partnership, for their own reasons. Does this not underline the benefit of the Bill? People who are in this position having had gender reassignment surgery will have the choice, whether they are gay or heterosexual.

Caroline Lucas: Yes, I think it does underline the benefit. As we have said, the numbers are not huge, but for the individuals involved, it was very distressing, so I think it appropriate that we take this opportunity to address the situation.
	My amendment 49 would address the continuing discriminatory hurdle in the Bill around pensions. The Bill allows employers and pension providers to award gay spouses and civil partners a fraction of the survivor benefits payable to a partner in a mixed-sex marriage. It is an unnecessary and counter-productive anomaly in a Bill that otherwise makes landmark progress in furthering the fundamental human rights of gay people. The amendment would give same sex couples entering into a gay marriage entitlement to the same pension rights as married opposite-sex couples. It removes both existing discriminatory provisions in the Equality Act 2010 and the subsequent extension of that discrimination in this Bill.

Malcolm Rifkind: In tabling amendment 49, the hon. Lady has identified an anomaly that deserves to be rectified in the way she suggests. If the Government and the House want to give complete equality to same-sex relationships, they must address the pension question, otherwise we will have this extraordinary anomaly that if a person in a same-sex relationship today chooses to enter into a heterosexual marriage tomorrow, their new spouse would have full pension entitlement, whereas their former same-sex partner, whom they might have had a relationship with for many years, would get a fraction of that pension entitlement. If the Government and the House want same-sex relationships to have full equal rights, her amendment must be the right course of action.

Caroline Lucas: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. I know he has had first-hand experience in his constituency of exactly this issue.
	Paragraph 18 of schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010 allows employers and pension providers to ignore the service and contributions of gay employees made before 5 December 2005 when it comes to assessing survivor benefits for their civil partners and occupational pension schemes. Paragraph 15 of schedule 4 to the Bill would extend that discriminatory provision to same-sex spouses.
	As we saw in yesterday’s debate on opening civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, the Government are comfortable arguing that unforeseen costs to pension schemes are a legitimate justification for sanctioning discrimination, yet their warning that the equalisation of treatment in the provision of occupational pension benefits will cost too much simply cannot be substantiated. No pension provider can accurately predict how many individuals in a pension scheme will be gay, never mind how many of them will marry or form a civil partnership with an individual who outlives them by a significant period of time.
	Dealing with uncertainties around length of life, the possibility of illness, the decision to marry and many other issues is second nature to pension providers. Gay married people pose no more uncertainty than their straight counterparts. What is more, according to the Government’s figures, two thirds of pension providers already do the right thing, so any additional liability to pension schemes will surely be minimal. The financial implications of perpetuating discrimination could be very grave indeed, though, for those individuals who
	have paid into their pension schemes in the same way as other employees, yet will be denied the survivor benefits available to married mixed-sex couples.
	One recent employment tribunal found that an occupational pension scheme was directly discriminatory because it provided a civil partner only with the benefit from pension rights accrued since 2004—in other words, when civil partnerships became available in the UK. John Walker and his civil partner have been together for 20 years and registered their civil partnership at the first possible opportunity, yet the pension scheme sought to restrict the survivor benefits available to John’s partner to just £500 a year. If John dissolved his civil partnership and married a woman today, she would be entitled to £41,000 per annum in the event of his death.
	With the help of Liberty, John challenged that discrimination and recently won his legal battle to secure equal pension benefits for his civil partner. The employment tribunal relied on European Court of Justice rulings, which concluded that treating married and same-sex couples differently over the pensions payable to a survivor when national law recognises the relationships as equivalent in other respects breached the framework directive on equal treatment in employment. My amendment 49 would ensure full compliance with that directive and, crucially, ensure that the equality rulings made by the courts are applicable to all marriage relationships.

Mary Glindon: Does the hon. Lady agree that if people are to have parity before the law, they must have not just emotional parity, but financial parity? Anything less would not be equality in any shape or form.

Caroline Lucas: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We are talking about genuine equality. That means legal equality, as well as symbolic or any other kind of equality.
	That tribunal was a landmark case. Interestingly, the Government lost the case, so one could argue that agreeing to my amendment 49 might save them money, as they would not need to pay out in future legal cases that might go against them. If the law remains as it is for civil partners and that inequality is extended to those in same-sex marriages, it could be several decades before gay couples achieve real equality in pension provision. I see no justification for continuing to permit discrimination in this area. I hope very much that colleagues will support amendment 49 and join me in overturning an anomalous and discriminatory provision.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to participate in this important debate on this group of amendments.
	I have been quite conflicted over this entire subject. I am a godfather to a lovely little boy who has been adopted. His parents are in a partnership and they are both gay. I see myself very much as a progressive Conservative, and I certainly recognise that society’s attitudes have advanced, which is reflected in the fact that we are debating the amendments in such detail today. Of course we do not send children up chimneys any more, or allow only privileged landowners to vote, and we got rid of slavery long ago.
	Now that we are debating the final set of amendments to the Bill, however, I have to ask where the call is for the details that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) mentioned. Where are the demands to drive those changes? There is certainly a trajectory in society that suggests that the amendments should be debated as part of the wider Bill. Like other MPs, I have had a full postbag and inbox, and I am grateful for the correspondence on these issues. Some of the language has been quite creative and provocative.

Mike Freer: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Speaking as a gay man in a civil partnership, I had no idea that my pension rights could be curtailed until someone wrote to me about it. The reason my hon. Friend might not have had much about that in his postbag could be that most gay people in a civil partnership have no idea that they are being discriminated against if they are in a contracted-in scheme.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The question is whether the Bill should be the vehicle for making those changes, but I very much respect his views.
	I represent the beautiful, very diverse constituency of Bournemouth East. It has a substantial elderly population—some Members of Parliament have chosen to call Bournemouth “God’s waiting room”—as well as a vibrant town centre with a huge gay population. It is also a university town. So it has an elderly population and a young generation, as well as a large gay community. I have talked to members of the gay community about the Bill. I have also made an effort to speak to religious groups, individuals and organisations across the town, not only about pensions but about matters such as gender recognition. We debated those matters in schools as well. I have to say that I heard no significant call for these proposals generally, and certainly not for the provision in amendment 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). There were no planned demonstrations or pent-up anger because the issues had not been addressed.
	Many people in the gay community like the general proposals in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) has just pointed out, certain aspects in life need to be corrected, and this debate has been helpful in that regard. In general terms, however, most of the people I spoke to said, “Go away and focus on the economy.” They suggested that this was an important issue, but wondered why we were dealing with it right now.
	The Bill was not mentioned in any Queen’s Speech, and I believe that the Government could have helped themselves by following the normal protocol of announcing that the measures would be introduced in a particular legislative period. Given that backdrop, I take my hat off to the Secretary of State and her Ministers for their stamina in pursuing the amendments they have tabled. They must have known from the start how controversial the amendments and the Bill as a whole would be. I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s assurances, especially on Government amendment 25.

Steve Brine: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, as I always do. The Bill as a whole has certainly been controversial—it has divided the parties
	and the country—but does he agree that amendment 49, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), is not controversial and should attract widespread support across the House and outside in the country? It represents a bit of unfinished business from the Civil Partnerships Act 2004.

Tobias Ellwood: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but I step back and wonder whether all these amendments are required right now and whether this is where society wants to go right now. Many Members have been forced to make a decision, and there is naturally a tendency to want to support the Bill and not to view it as out of place. My question is why these issues are being brought to our attention at this moment in time. As I say, I did not see the deluge of calls for this measure, although the trajectory of society moving forward means that this is very much how we would anticipate the Bill and its amendments.
	I am pleased that we have this opportunity to conduct this debate, which has prompted us to think about the wider issues of the role, purpose and values of marriage in our society. We are debating amendments relating to gender recognition and so forth, which has educated us about the historic role of the state in respect of the Church.
	The Bible is full of commands that are unknown or ignored by many Christians today. That reflects how society is very much moving forward. Wives used to be subject to their husbands; children arguing with their parents used to be taken out and stoned to death; women used to have to cover their heads in church. Those things are either unknown by Christians today or simply ignored because they have no place in modern society. The Church has changed its views over the years—indeed, the Bill has changed as we have debated it over these last few months.
	The Church remains divided on many subjects: the burning of witches, abortion, contraception, the status of illegitimate children and so forth. On a wider perspective, it is the role of Parliament to challenge the Church on these issues and through the Bill and amendments, as we did on the grander issues in the past. Slavery was indeed defended by many bishops because of the Bible; the Old Testament regulated for slavery; divorce was clearly condemned by Jesus in the Gospels, and those who had divorced were not permitted to remarry. In the Church of England, marriage was “Till death us do part”; it was long thought to be lifelong and indissoluble, yet divorce was formally introduced in this place in 1857.
	What, then, are my thoughts on this Bill? I am absolutely supportive of the concept, but, like many of the Government amendments, it is ahead of its time. That puts many of us in an awkward position. Do we support the Government amendments and the Bill, which I believe to be somewhat messy and not well handled, albeit on a subject to which I do not object. Should I vote against the Bill and the amendments for which many of my constituents have called? A significant number of them were moved enough to call me to make sure that I did not support specific amendments or indeed the Bill as a whole. Then there is the final option, which is to abstain on the amendments and the Bill, thus honouring many of the calls not to support the Bill’s proposals while ensuring that my vote is honest to myself.
	I shall conclude because I know others wish to participate in this important Report debate. I hope I shall not digress too far from the subject matter by mentioning that the FTSE 100 yesterday recorded its highest value in 24 years; despite being a significant economic indicator, it got no mention in this place. I hope that after Third Reading later today, we can back to considering the economy. The subject of gay marriage is significant and should be brought into law, but I remain to be convinced that it should be a priority for now. Those who will benefit from the change in the law are calling for the change now.

Jim Shannon: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to amendments 27 and 28. It will not be a surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to hear that I am deeply unhappy about the Bill. I have said that in Public Bill Committee and in this Chamber in the earlier debate, I said it yesterday and I will reiterate it today.
	I want to thank the Government for at least listening to me and my party on one issue. The Bill proposes that same-sex marriages formed in England and Wales should be recognised as civil partnerships in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is consistent with the way in which overseas same-sex marriages are currently recognised in the House.
	I was a member of the Committee that scrutinised the Bill. When I say “scrutinised”, I mean that the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) scrutinised it very thoroughly. Most of the Committee’s members, however, sat in silence throughout the five days of our debates on the clauses, and most of them tabled precious few amendments. They seemed to see themselves as cheerleaders for the Bill, rather than the scrutinisers that they should have been. Never before, during my short time in the House of Commons, have I known members of the official Opposition to abdicate their responsibility to hold the Government to account quite so thoroughly.
	Some of us did table amendments, and took the time and the trouble to speak. I pointed out to the Committee that Scottish Ministers were to be asked to give their consent to legal changes allowing recognition of English same-sex marriages, whereas Northern Ireland Ministers were merely to be consulted. Amendments 27 and 28 give us an opportunity to align the law with that in Scotland, which is good news.
	As I said in Committee and have said in the Chamber, the Bill has generated the biggest single postbag I have received on any issue in all my years as an elected representative—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am trying to be as tolerant as possible, but we are discussing this group of amendments, not previous amendments and what happened in Committee. I am trying to be fair, but we are in danger of not remaining where we should be.

Jim Shannon: Amendments 27 and 28 provide for “consent”, Mr Deputy Speaker, and remove the reference to consultation. Why is that important? It is important to the people whom I represent in Northern Ireland because it introduces accountability to the process. Some 1,700 of my constituents have contacted me about the
	issue: members of the Church of Ireland, Presbyterians, Methodists, members of the Elim Pentacostal Church, Baptist Brethren, evangelical groups, Roman Catholics, Sikhs and Muslims. Members of faith groups throughout Northern Ireland have asked us, as Members of Parliament, to push for consent rather than consultation, and we have done so.
	I believe that when we convey opinions about the importance of faith and religious persuasions, as we have in the House today and as we did in Committee, those opinions cannot be ignored. It has grieved me when some members of the Committee, and perhaps some Members in the House, have brushed aside the opinions of those with hard-held religious views.
	Several of my fellow Northern Ireland Members have received similar amounts of correspondence from constituents, all of them pushing for consent rather than consultation. Only 17 of my constituents who contacted me were in favour of the changes. Theirs was very much a minority view, but it is one that we must respect and take on board.
	The Northern Ireland Assembly will make the final decision on the issue, which is why amendments 27 and 28 are important. The Assembly has rejected same-sex marriage on two occasions under the consultation process. The first occasion was on 1 October 2012, when it was rejected by 50 votes to 45. Then, on 29 April this year, it was rejected by 53 votes to 42.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have been generous, and have allowed what I thought was a kind of preamble, but we are actually discussing a group of amendments entitled “Gender, benefits and miscellaneous”. That is the problem that I am facing. I thought that the hon. Gentleman must be getting there. I am sure that he is, and will confine himself to the subjects under discussion from now on.

Jim Shannon: I may have been a wee bit over-ambitious in trying to express some of my points of view, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I appreciate your generosity. I will return to the issues directly.
	The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), confirmed to me, in a letter that I received yesterday, that
	“Amendments 27 and 28 to clause 15(6) of the Bill make all orders and regulations made under the Bill subject to the consent of the Department of Finance and Personnel if those amendments would otherwise fall within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
	The amendments have clearly given the Assembly the authority to make a final decision on the issue. That is very significant, and I thank both Ministers for what they have done.
	This issue is immensely important to us in Northern Ireland, and has given rise to a massive postbag. I thank Ministers again for enabling consent rather than consultation to be enshrined in legislation.

Mike Freer: May I return to the topic of amendment 49, which I was very pleased to co-sign with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)?
	Let me start by reassuring my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) that building a stable and cohesive society is one of the most fundamental roles of Government, so to be doing that today through debating this Bill is a highly appropriate use of parliamentary time. To those who ask whether we should be doing something else, I say that I can, perhaps unusually for a man, multi-task, so I think I can manage both to speak in this debate and to deal with other pressing issues.
	Turning specifically to the amendment, it is important to distinguish between contracted-in and contracted-out pensions. This is quite a technical change and it does not apply to contracted-out pensions; it applies only to contracted-in pensions. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, two-thirds of pension schemes already allow spousal survivors in civil partnerships equivalent widow or widower benefits without having to be forced to do so by the law, but one-third of them are discriminating. What is worse, that is an optional discrimination; they are choosing to discriminate against surviving civil partners in contracted-in pension schemes.
	Let me try to explain why that is so fundamentally wrong. The hon. Lady gave the example of John Walker. Had he married a woman, she would have got a pension on his death of £41,000, but his civil partner got a pension of just £500 per annum. That diversity is the wrong kind of diversity; that is pure discrimination. Let us assume two men or two women join a pension scheme on the same day, and they both have the same level of service, and they both enter into some form of partnership, but one gets married and the other goes into a civil partnership, and let us also assume that the day after they get married or enter their civil partnership, they are both, by some quirk of fate, killed in a car accident. The pension of the widow in marriage will be go back to the date her former husband joined the pension scheme, let us say some 20 years previously, but the civil partner only gets to go as far back as when civil partnerships came into law. That cannot be right by any stretch of the imagination.
	When researching why the Government were resisting this amendment, I was told that one of the issues is the cost factor. Everything we as a Government do has a cost, so I thought there must be some huge cost—perhaps £4 billion, which was a ready price-tag yesterday. In fact, the cost of giving equal pension rights on contracted-in pensions to civil partners is £18 million—not £80 million or £80 billion, but £18 million. It is true that that is a lot of money, and I certainly would not mind having £18 million in my bank account, but let me put that into perspective. The assets under management of the pension industry amount to £360 billion, so the cost of removing this anomaly is 0.006% of assets under management. I do not think that is a price we cannot afford.
	I was also told that it is wrong to force pension providers to make retrospective calculations on which they did not base their pension actuarial decisions. That, too, is a flawed argument. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, the actuaries behind a pension scheme make a whole variety of assumptions about longevity, how many of their pensioners will die in service and how many of them will die as a pensioner, and how long they will stay in the pension, and the accrual rate will be based on an assumption that most of their members will get married. It is complete nonsense
	to suggest that pension providers cannot allow civil partners who survive to get the same benefit as a widow or widower because it has not been accrued, as there is absolutely no evidence that the actuaries have not been able to make that calculation. If they made the calculation that X% of their pensioners would get married, they could simply make assumptions about a man in a civil partnership. They will have had no knowledge of whether that man or woman would have decided to get married or to enter a civil partnership and there is no logical or financial reason why the anomaly cannot be removed.
	I hope that the Minister will give some commitment from the Government that the anomaly will be reconsidered. I know it was mentioned in Committee and that the Government are resisting the amendments, but I urge my ministerial colleagues to address the issue.

James Duddridge: I totally support the comments my hon. Friend is making about removing the anomaly. Is there a list of companies that are already doing the right thing and, crucially, those that are doing the wrong thing? Are those companies named and shamed? Often, when we flick through the glossy corporate reports they say lots of glowing things and that the company is doing the right thing, but are they putting their money where their mouth is and supporting equal rights?

Mike Freer: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have tried to dig around to find out the size of liabilities and which companies are doing this, but unfortunately I cannot find that information. It is fair to say that many corporates take great pleasure in trumpeting in their annual reports what they would regard as their social responsibility, but I think that they should be saying loud and proud—to coin a phrase—that they are treating civil partners in the same way as heterosexual widows and widowers.
	I hope that my ministerial colleagues can give some ground and say that the Government are willing to reconsider the matter. The cost is not even a rounding error in the Government accounts or for the pension industry, but the benefit to the recipients is beyond value.

Kate Green: It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), whose contributions to our debates on this Bill at every stage have been exemplary, moving, powerful and reasoned.
	I am very pleased to welcome warmly many of the amendments on transgender issues. I particularly welcome Government amendments 40 to 47, and I thank Ministers, who I know have taken on board issues raised in Committee about pension protections for transgender couples. I am pleased that the concerns raised in Committee have been addressed in the amendments. They will create no new liability for pension funds and will remove for some couples the hideous decision about whether a member of the couple should proceed with gender reassignment and, in the process, remove the pension rights of a much-loved spouse. I know that following the debate in Committee, transgender people and their partners are pleased by the Government’s response and I want to put on record my thanks to Ministers for that.
	I also welcome the other amendments on transgender issues in the group. Although I have some concerns about the compensation provision, the calculation given
	to us by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) suggests that there is relatively—indeed, microscopically—little cause for any Chancellor to be concerned. I hope that the Government will consider very carefully the whole package of amendments on transgender issues proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others. As I think the hon. Gentleman said, many of the injustices that the amendments seek to address are probably inadvertent injustices, but they are none the less deeply wrong injustices suffered by transgender couples. I invite Ministers to look, even as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament, at ways in which we might put rectifying action in place.
	On amendment 49, on pensions, I too recognise the anomaly that exists between the treatment of pension rights for married couples and same-sex civil partners. I also recognise that resolving this anomaly is not without difficulty. We have always accepted the estimate of £18 million potential additional cost to private contracted-in occupational pension schemes, and I agree with hon. Members who have already said that in the scheme of overall funds under management for pension companies, that seems a very small amount indeed, although I also accept the concern that extending pension rights to civil partners could have a disproportionate impact in a very small number of cases, particularly in small and often charity employer schemes.
	In relation to other schemes and the possible wider effect, for example on contracted-out occupational pensions, where Ministers have suggested a potential impact of £90 million, or in relation to public sector schemes, I must say that I am still puzzled as to why we think there is any further implication. In February I obtained a note from the House of Commons Library which pointed out that civil partners are already entitled to survivor benefits in contracted-out and public sector schemes in relation to benefits going back to 1988. That is a result of the Civil Partnership (Contracted-out and Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) (Surviving Civil Partners) Order 2005. The Library said that the same was true of public sector schemes, as I say. So I am not clear how the exemption would affect those contracted-out and public sector schemes.
	Although I have great sympathy for the amendment, the Government should come forward with a full analysis in order for Parliament to take an informed decision on what the cost implications would be. That is why I tabled new clause 17, which was not selected for debate. I understand the reasons for that, but it would have asked for the full report of the pensions costs implications for all forms of occupational pension and the impact on pension funds and pensioner poverty to be presented to Parliament. Although the new clause has not been selected for debate, I join the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green in asking Ministers to present the fullest possible information to Parliament so that we can make a proper decision. I recognise that if we get it wrong, we could drive very small pension schemes out of business, which would exacerbate inequalities in other ways.
	As things stand, we are without a proper review of the cost. Ministers have expressed concerns that it could be more—potentially considerably more—than £18 million, and on the basis of the information before us, I regret that I cannot support amendment 49 today. However, I
	want to place on record my strong support for the principle that underpins it, and I very much hope that information that will enable us to move forward will be available to the House as soon as possible.

Helen Grant: It is nice to be able to make a contribution at last to this important debate, after sitting on the Front Bench for quite a few hours.
	I will first speak to Government amendments in the group. This is a large group of amendments that, in broad terms, concern pension entitlements, gender reassignment, devolution and a number of miscellaneous matters. Government amendment 25 ensures that the protection for the Church of England in the Bill is both full and clear. We have been continuing our discussions with the Church since we knew that it had doubts about whether the power provided in clause 11(5)(c) would be sufficient to enable us to provide full protection for Church of England ecclesiastical law from the effect of clauses 11(1) and 11(2). It is an important part of the protection that Church of England canon law should not be affected by the provisions in the Bill and that references to marriage shall continue to mean marriage between a man with a woman only. Having consulted the Church of England, we have decided to provide further protection by referring to ecclesiastical law in the Bill. The amendment affects only law applying to the Church of England in the limited cases where the effect of marriage is at issue.
	The Government’s devolution amendments clarify and make improvements to provisions on the control of secondary legislation affecting legislation within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. These changes follow constructive discussions with the Scottish and Northern Irish Administrations, which have sought additional reassurance on the extent to which the Secretary of State will, under the Bill, be able to amend or introduce legislation normally within their competence.
	In respect of Scotland, we are extending the current requirement in clause 15(6)(a) on the Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor to obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers prior to making orders that amend legislation within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. That will broaden the consent requirement to regulations as well as orders, and will additionally require such consent when orders and regulations make provision under the Bill that is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
	In respect of Northern Ireland, we are proposing arrangements that essentially mirror those for Scotland. Rather than a requirement to consult the Department of Finance and Personnel, we now propose a consent requirement that would apply to regulations as well as orders, and to measures creating new legislation within the competence of the Assembly.
	Government amendment 48 relates to marriages in overseas consulates and armed forces bases, and means that if an Order in Council made under schedule 6 contains provisions that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish
	Parliament must be consulted before such an order is made. Similar arrangements are proposed for Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: My intervention relates specifically to Northern Ireland and harks back to the useful advice given at the beginning of the debate by the Attorney-General in relation to the risk of discrimination. The Minister will know that under the Bill as drafted, if it is enacted, schedule 2 means that a couple who avail of the facility of a same-sex marriage will be fine in England and Wales, but as soon as they go to Northern Ireland it reverts to a civil partnership. My concern, mirrored by the Attorney-General’s intervention in relation to an earlier amendment, is that within the United Kingdom, surely that is discrimination on grounds of different status in Northern Ireland as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Helen Grant: I could not quite hear everything that the hon. Lady said, but my consideration is that it is down to Northern Ireland to respond. I am assured that that is right, but if that is not correct I will write to her to clarify that.

Jim Shannon: Perhaps the Minister’s correspondence could clarify the matter. I believe that the authority lies with the Northern Ireland Assembly. Perhaps she might like to reply, if that is in order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Helen Grant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am being reassured from both flanks, and from much higher authorities than me, that that is the situation.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on these devolution matters and for the work the Government have done to ensure that we have our own separate legislation for same-sex marriage. Can she assure me that she will do all she can to work with Scottish Ministers and ensure that everything required for a legislative consent motion will be approved by the UK Government so that we can go ahead with our own process in Scotland?

Helen Grant: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We will certainly work very hard on that together.
	I turn now to Government amendments 30 to 32, which are purely technical and simply ensure that the use of the phrase “existing England and Wales legislation” is entirely coherent, so as to remove any possible doubt as to its meaning. Government amendments 33 to 39 are technical and make changes to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 to ensure that it works entirely properly for same-sex marriages. Amendment 33 makes changes to the 1973 Act in relation to what applies to opposite-sex and same-sex marriages and to give effect to schedule A1.
	Amendments 34, 35, 36 and 38 make changes to ensure consistency of language with the 1973 Act. Amendment 37 inserts a provision into schedule A1 to enable applications for an order to end a marriage because one of the couple is dead to be made under the Presumption of Death Act 2013. Amendment 39 enables schedule A1 to work using the presumption of death
	provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 if the 2013 Act is not in force when the Bill comes into force. Amendment 39 also amends schedule 1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 provisions on staying—meaning halting—matrimonial proceedings in England and Wales when there are other court proceedings at the same time outside England and Wales about that same-sex marriage. That will ensure that such proceedings on the same divorce, judicial separation or annulment do not give rise to conflicting decisions, which would prevent resolution of the issue.

Lady Hermon: I am listening intently to the Minister and am sorry to interrupt her at this stage, but I must bring her back to Northern Ireland. I really want an assurance from the Government that we in Northern Ireland will not see legal challenges on the grounds of breaches of the European convention on human rights by those who, if the Bill becomes law, avail of same-sex marriage in England and Wales. It is specifically paragraph 2 of schedule 2 that concerns me. It states:
	“Under the law of Northern Ireland, a marriage of a same sex couple under the law of England and Wales is to be treated as a civil partnership… (and accordingly, the spouses are to be treated as civil partners).”
	I just need reassurance from the Minister.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are getting to Third Reading points and I would not want the hon. Lady to use up the points that would be better made then.

Helen Grant: I am afraid that, as this is a devolved matter, it is impossible for me to give the assurance that the hon. Lady is asking for. Northern Ireland, rightly, has to look at the issue itself.
	Government amendments 40 to 47 deal with pension entitlements. They amend part 6 of schedule 4, which provides for same-sex married couples to be treated in the same manner and to be entitled to the same survivor benefits as civil partners. As drafted, that includes couples in same-sex marriages who have preserved their marriage following the change of legal gender of one of the spouses, and it is designed to ensure that all same-sex couples are treated alike for this purpose. We recognise that our policy of treating same-sex marriages in the same way as civil partnerships for occupational pension survivor benefits may create a problem in relation to survivor benefits for a very small group of individuals whose spouses change gender during their marriage. We understand that this could deter a transsexual person from seeking to change their legal gender because of the financial impact on their husband or wife. If the amendments are made, widows of marriages that become same-sex as a result of the husband’s change of legal gender during the marriage will still be treated as widows for the purpose of calculating survivor benefits in a contracted-out occupational pension scheme; and for schemes that are not contracted out, in calculating any entitlement to survivor benefits, the marriage will continue to be treated as opposite-sex marriage.

Mike Freer: If I heard the Minister correctly, she said that any transgender couple who transition will keep their full entitlement from the date of joining the pension scheme, but a civil partner survivor will still be restricted
	to the point at which civil partnerships became law. Does not that create yet another anomaly?

Helen Grant: I think that I have made the position clear. The concession is intended to target a very small group of people, and we do not intend to open it up any further. The main reason for giving the concession is that there has been no break in the marriage.
	Amendment 49 would remove the exception in the Equality Act 2010 that allows occupational pension schemes to take into consideration only accruals from 2005 for the purpose of survivor benefits for those in a civil partnership. It would also remove the provision in the Bill that extends the exception to same-sex married couples. When civil partnerships were introduced, an exception was added to equality legislation that allowed schemes to restrict access to survivor benefits for those in civil partnerships, so that schemes are required, when calculating survivor benefits, to take into account only accruals from 2005, when civil partnerships were implemented.
	We have a responsibility to balance the interests of all parties involved in a pension, so while we are of course absolutely committed to equality for same-sex couples, we do not believe that it would be right to put on schemes the significant additional and retrospective financial burdens that would arise from removing the Equality Act exception. We are very conscious that defined-benefit schemes already face difficult economic conditions.

Mike Freer: Will the Minister give way?

Helen Grant: I would like to make a little headway, as I have a fair way to go.
	The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referred to the recent case of Walker, which was supported by Liberty, in which an employment tribunal found that a pension scheme had discriminated against a member by using that exception. The Government do not agree with that finding. The decision of the tribunal is not binding and there is nothing in it that leads us to question our policy. We intend to challenge the decision robustly. The Government have recently been added as an interested party in the appeal. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion not to press the amendment.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister explain what the situation will be if the Government lose the appeal, which seems entirely likely given the legal case?

Helen Grant: As an optimist, I would prefer to decide what action is appropriate if that happens. I do not want to prejudge the appeal.
	I shall now deal with the non-Government amendments on gender reassignment. Amendment 15 would enable a marriage to be held to be continuously valid from the date of the original marriage solemnisation, effectively restoring the original marriage. Amendment 22 would allow couples who have continued to live together following the annulment to apply to have their marriage reinstated from the date on which they notify the registrar of their wish to have their marriage reinstated.
	I understand the concerns that prompted hon. Members to propose those amendments, and the Government have great sympathy for couples who felt required to make the difficult choice to end their marriage to enable one party to obtain gender recognition. However, it is not possible to reinstate a marriage that has been lawfully ended by an order of the court. It will be possible to backdate converted marriages to the date of registration of the civil partnership, as the civil partnership will not have been lawfully ended.
	Couples who have continued to live together will be able to marry by virtue of the changes in the Bill. I realise that that will not be a reinstatement of the original marriage, but I sincerely hope that couples will feel able to make use of these important provisions. I realise that some transsexual people in this situation may be disappointed, but we need to ensure that a person’s legal relationship status is completely clear at all times in the eyes of the law.
	Amendment 18 would enable a one-off payment of £1,000 from public funds to be made as compensation for the distress caused to and costs incurred by couples who had their marriages annulled to enable one or both parties to get gender recognition. I cannot support that amendment because we have to take the law as we find it. It is not fair arbitrarily to compensate couples who decided to end their marriage under the law that applied at the time. There will be other couples who felt unable to end their marriage and who may have suffered distress as a result of not being able to obtain gender recognition. We have taken on board the issues that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) have raised, and we will continue to listen carefully.
	The first part of amendment 16 would provide a power for the Registrar General to make regulations about the issuing of new marriage certificates to couples in which one or both parties have obtained gender recognition that reflect the trans party’s acquired gender, but retain the original date of registration. That could include the date of registration of a marriage that had been annulled. I assure the House that that part of the amendment is unnecessary because the power provided in the Bill is wide enough to deal with those matters. We will give serious consideration to the registration date that should be referred to on any new marriage certificate issued to a couple who are to stay married following gender recognition. We will also need to ensure that the certificate does not inadvertently reveal that one party has gender recognition.
	The second part of amendment 16 would provide a power for the Registrar General of England and Wales to make regulations providing for amended birth certificates for transsexual people’s children to reflect the transsexual person’s acquired gender. The amendment does not seem to be directly related to equal marriage, and in any event I cannot accept it as section 12 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 makes it clear that gender recognition does not affect the status of a transsexual person as the father or mother of a child. That section is necessary to ensure the continuity of parental rights and responsibilities and to protect the right of children to know the details of their biological parents.
	Amendment 12 is intended to remove the provision in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that makes a marriage voidable when a transsexual person marries a non-trans person but does not inform that person of their trans status prior to the marriage or at the time when it takes place. I cannot accept the amendment, because the current provision in the 1973 Act and the corresponding provision in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 provide important protection for the non-trans spouse. If a non-trans person finds themselves in a marriage to which they did not fully consent, it is only right that they should be able to apply to annul the marriage rather than have to wait to bring time-consuming and often costly divorce proceedings.
	Amendments 13 and 14 would require the Gender Recognition Panel to issue full gender recognition certificates to all applicants in protected marriages, irrespective of the non-trans spouse’s views. It would then be open to the non-trans spouse to issue divorce proceedings. I understand that the amendments are intended to remove the so-called “spousal veto” in schedule 5. However, let me be clear that non-trans spouses will not be able to veto their spouses obtaining gender recognition. I also understand that the amendments are intended to deal with the problem of hostile or obstructive non-trans spouses who deliberately seek to delay nullity proceedings. I have not seen any evidence that that is a widespread problem. If the grounds for the marriage being voidable are met, the hostility or absence of the non-trans spouse should not delay a court in issuing a decree of nullity. If there is evidence that unnecessary delays are occurring, we believe that it should be a matter for the court.
	It must be remembered that a marriage is contracted between two people who should have an equal say in the future of that marriage. We consider that it would be unfair to remove the right of every non-trans spouse to have a say in the future of their marriage before gender recognition takes place. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendments relating to gender reassignment.
	Finally, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate. I am conscious of time and know that I need to leave a little time for the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) to respond, so I will conclude my remarks.

Julian Huppert: We have discussed some important and detailed issues that matter intensely to a range of people. I am grateful for the tone in which the debate has been conducted by almost everybody; it has been productive. I know that people from the trans community and other minority sexual communities who have been watching are impressed that Parliament is able to discuss these matters.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is no longer in his place, said that there is no pent-up anger about some of these issues. I would quote comments sent to me by some of my transgender colleagues, but I suspect the language would be rather unparliamentary. There is certainly pent-up anger among people about their stolen marriages.
	As I am sure the Minister is aware, I disagree on some of the detail about these amendments and I maintain that there are some concerns. I was worried by some of the language about not fully consenting to a marriage, although I am sure the Minister did not mean to imply
	that people need to be protected from transgender spouses or transgender people—I am sure that is not what was intended. I was grateful to hear her say that the Government will continue to listen carefully on such issues. I hope there will be further discussion in another place and that the Government will reflect on what more they are able to do.
	There has been some progress and I acknowledge some of the Government amendments. On stolen marriages, amendment 15 was always an ideal, and I am well aware of the Government’s objection to backdating. It would be wonderful if it were possible to do so, and I am sure the Attorney-General is a good enough lawyer to find a way to do that. The Minister highlighted the fact that couples will be able to backdate their new marriage to the date on which their civil partnership was formed, so there is some form of backdating, which is welcome. In many cases, there will be a one-day gap between two otherwise identical marriages, which is slightly odd, but I am grateful for that progress. Amendment 15 was always somewhat optimistic, but I hope we can make progress on some of the other issues.
	Amendment 49, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), is critical. It has been noted that the current position gives rise to some truly odd anomalies. We are introducing—quite correctly—protection for someone who is transgender and transitions, so that they do not lose out on pensions by virtue of that, but we are leaving in place a slightly bizarre anomaly, mentioned by the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), regarding people who have a same-sex relationship, because we are not backdating that to before 2005. That seems deeply anomalous and I am sure the Attorney-General will give clear advice about discrimination on that basis.

Mike Freer: I raised that question because of the anomaly that a gay man or a straight man joining the pension scheme will pay contributions at the same rate but receive different benefits, which is discrimination.

Julian Huppert: It is absolutely discriminatory. It is also the case that a bisexual man or woman would pay at the same rate and would get a different pension transferred depending who they happen to end up with. That seems truly bizarre. The position is not at all sustainable and if the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion presses her amendment to the vote, I expect that I and my colleagues will support her. It is a free vote but I promise my support. However, given that Opposition Front Benchers have said they will not support the proposal, I will understand if the hon. Lady wants to leave her amendment for consideration in another place. The situation is completely unsustainable and it should not last the passage of this Bill. Amendment 15 is right in principle, but I accept that it will not win support, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11
	 — 
	Effect of extension of marriage

Amendment made: 25,page11,line8,leave out from ‘other’ to end of line 10 and insert
	‘ecclesiastical law (whether or not contained in England and Wales legislation, and, if contained in England and Wales legislation, whenever passed or made).’.—
	(Maria Miller.)

Clause 15
	 — 
	Orders and regulations

Amendments made: 26,page12,line36,leave out from ‘order’ to ‘would’ in line 38 and insert
	‘or regulations under this Act, except an order under section18(3), containing provision which’.
	Amendment 27, in clause15,page12,line40,leave out ‘consult’ and insert ‘obtain the consent of’.
	Amendment 28, in clause15,page12,line41,leave out from ‘order’ to ‘would’ in line 42 and insert
	‘or regulations under this Act, except an order under section18(3), containing provision which’.—
	(Maria Miller.)

Clause 17
	 — 
	Extent

Amendments made: 51,page14,line1,at end insert
	‘, except for section (Review of civil partnership)’.
	Amendment 52, in clause17,page14,line5,at end insert
	‘, except for section (Review of civil partnership)’.—
	(Maria Miller.)

Schedule 2
	 — 
	Extra-territorial matters

Amendment made: 29,page21,line26, leave out sub-paragraph (5).—(Maria Miller.)

Schedule 3
	 — 
	Interpretation of legislation

Amendments made: 30,page23,line30, leave out from beginning to ‘legislation’ in line 32 and insert
	‘In existing England and Wales’.
	Amendment 31,page24,line7, leave out
	‘which has effect as indicated in section 11(2)’.
	Amendment 32,page24,line21, leave out
	‘which has effect as indicated in section 11(2) and’.—(Maria Miller.)

Schedule 4
	 — 
	Effect of extension of marriage: further provision

Amendments made: 33,page26,line28, leave out from ‘courts)’ to end of line 30 on page 27 and insert
	‘is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
	‘(2) Subsection (1): after “entertain” insert “any of the following proceedings in relation to a marriage of a man and a woman”.
	(3) After subsection (5) insert—
	“(5A) Schedule A1 (jurisdiction in relation to marriage of same sex couples) has effect.”.
	(4) Subsection (6): after “Wales” insert “(whether the proceedings are in respect of the marriage of a man and a woman or the marriage of a same sex couple)”.
	7 Section 6 (miscellaneous amendments, transitional provision and savings), subsection (3): after “Act” (in the first place) insert “, or by virtue of Schedule A1 to this Act,”.
	8 Before Schedule 1 insert—
	“SCHEDULE A1

Jurisdiction in relation to marriage of same sex couples

Introduction
	1 This Schedule shall have effect, subject to section 6(3) and (4), with respect to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain any of the following proceedings in relation to a marriage of a same sex couple—
	(a) proceedings for divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage;
	(b) proceedings for an order which ends a marriage on the ground that one of the couple is dead; and
	(c) proceedings for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage.’.
	Amendment 34,page27,line32, leave out ‘a divorce order’ and insert ‘divorce’.
	Amendment 35,page28,line3, leave out ‘a nullity order’ and insert ‘nullity of marriage’.
	Amendment 36,page28,line28, leave out from ‘for’ to ‘even’ in line 29 and insert
	‘divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage’.
	Amendment 37,page28,line32, leave out from ‘for’ to end of line 38 and insert
	‘an order which ends a marriage on the ground that one of the couple is dead on an application made by the other of the couple (“the applicant”) if (and only if)—
	(a) at the time the application is made, the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an application by the applicant under section 1 of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 for a declaration that the applicant’s spouse is presumed to be dead, and’.
	Amendment 38,page28,line44, leave out ‘of validity’ and insert
	‘as to the validity of a marriage’.
	Amendment 39,page29,line47, at end insert—
	8A (1) Schedule 1 (staying of matrimonial proceedings in England and Wales: interpretation), paragraph 2: after “kinds” insert “(whether relating to a marriage of a man and a woman or a marriage of a same sex couple)”.
	Transitory provision until commencement of Presumption of Death Act 2013
	8B (1) This paragraph applies if section 1 of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 has not come into force at the time when the amendments of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 made by the other provisions of this Part of this Schedule come into force.
	(2) Schedule A1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 has effect with the following modifications until section 1 of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 comes into force.
	(3) Paragraph 1 has effect with the following provision substituted for paragraph (b)—
	(b) proceedings for death to be presumed and a marriage to be dissolved in pursuance of section 19 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; and”.
	(4) Schedule A1 has effect with the following provision substituted for paragraph 3—
	3 The court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for death to be presumed and a marriage to be dissolved if (and only if)—
	(a) the applicant is domiciled in England and Wales on the date when the proceedings are begun,
	(b) the applicant was habitually resident in England and Wales throughout the period of 1 year ending with that date, or
	(c) the two people concerned married each other under the law of England and Wales and it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to assume jurisdiction in the case.”.’.
	Amendment 40,page34,line4, at end insert ‘, or
	(c) married to a person of the same sex in a relevant gender change case.
	“(1B) The reference in sub-paragraph (1A)(c) to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—
	(a) the married couple were of the opposite sex at the time of their marriage, and
	(b) a full gender recognition certificate has been issued to one of the couple under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”.’.
	Amendment 41,page34,line13, after ‘(2)’ insert ‘—
	(a) paragraph (a): after “man” insert “, or a woman in a relevant gender change case,”;
	(b) ’.
	Amendment 42,page34,line18, after ‘woman’ insert
	‘(other than in a relevant gender change case)’.
	Amendment 43,page34,line27, at end insert—
	‘( ) After subsection (9) insert—
	(10) In relation to an earner who is a woman, a reference in this section to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—
	(a) the earner is a woman by virtue of a full gender recognition certificate having been issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and
	(b) the marriage of the earner and her widow (that ends with the earner’s death) subsisted before the time when the certificate was issued.
	(11) This section is subject to regulations under section 38A.”.’.
	Amendment 44,page34,line29, after ‘woman’ insert
	‘or a woman married to a woman in a relevant gender change case’.
	Amendment 45,page34,line32, after ‘woman’ insert
	‘(other than in a relevant gender change case)’.
	Amendment 46,page34,line34, at end insert—
	‘( ) After subsection (3) insert—
	(4) In relation to an earner who is a woman, a reference in this section to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—
	(a) the earner is a woman by virtue of a full gender recognition certificate having been issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and
	(b) the marriage of the earner and her widow (that ends with the earner’s death) subsisted before the time when the certificate was issued.
	(5) This section is subject to regulations under section 38A.”.’.
	Amendment 47,page34,line35, leave out paragraph 20 and insert—
	20 (1) Section 37 (alteration of rules of contracted-out schemes) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsection (4) substitute—
	(4) The reference in subsection (3) to a person entitled to receive benefits under a scheme includes a person who is so entitled by virtue of a qualifying relationship only in such cases as may be prescribed.
	(5) For that purpose a person is entitled to receive benefits by virtue of a qualifying relationship if the person is so entitled by virtue of being—
	(a) the widower of a female earner;
	(b) the widower of a male earner;
	(c) the widow of a female earner, except where it is a relevant gender change case; or
	(d) the survivor of a civil partnership with an earner.
	(6) In relation to a widow of a female earner, the reference in subsection (5)(c) to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—
	(a) the earner is a woman by virtue of a full gender recognition certificate having been issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and
	(b) the marriage of the earner and her widow (that ends with the earner’s death) subsisted before the time when the certificate was issued.
	(7) This section is subject to regulations under section 38A.”.
	20A Before section 39 insert—
	“38A Regulations about relevant gender change cases
	(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for—
	(a) section 17,
	(b) section 24D, or
	(c) section 37,
	to have its special effect in relevant gender change cases only if conditions prescribed in the regulations are met.
	(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, prescribe conditions that relate to the provision of information by—
	(a) one or both of the members of married same sex couples, or
	(b) the survivors of such couples.
	(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make further provision about cases where (because of regulations under subsection (1))—
	(a) section 17,
	(b) section 24D, or
	(c) section 37,
	does not have its special effect in relevant gender change cases.
	(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular, provide for the section in question to have its ordinary effect in relevant gender change cases.
	(5) Regulations under subsection (1) or (3) may, in particular, modify or disapply any enactment that concerns information relating to—
	(a) the gender or sex of a person, or
	(b) the change of gender or sex of a person,
	including any enactment that concerns requests for, or disclosure of, such information.
	(6) In this section, in relation to section 17, 24D or 37—
	(a) “relevant gender change case” has the same meaning as in that section;
	(b) “special effect” means the effect which the section has (if regulations under subsection (1) of this section are ignored) in relation to relevant gender change cases, insofar as that effect is different from the section’s ordinary effect;
	(c) “ordinary effect” means the effect which the section has in relation to same sex married couples in cases that are not relevant gender change cases.”.’.—(Maria Miller.)

Schedule 6
	 — 
	Marriage overseas

Amendment made: 48,page45,line31, at end insert—
	‘(2) In the case of an Order in Council containing provision which would (if contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament) be within the legislative competence of that Parliament, no recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty under this paragraph unless the Scottish Ministers have been consulted.
	(3) In the case of an Order in Council containing provision which would (if contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly) be within the legislative competence of that Assembly, no recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty under this paragraph unless the Department of Finance and Personnel has been consulted.’.—(Maria Miller.)
	Title
	Amendment made: 54, title,line4 after ‘overseas,’ insert
	‘and for the review of civil partnership,’.—
	(Maria Miller.)

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: It is always so encouraging to see such a display of enthusiasm at this hour.
	Third Reading
	Queen’s consent signified.

Maria Miller: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I start by thanking the Front Bench speakers from the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, as well as those from other parties located in their area of the House, who are too numerous to mention, for the good natured way in which the Bill has been discussed, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The Bill has excited many different views, but we have always conducted ourselves in the best ways of this House.
	While I am giving thanks, I also thank the officials who have worked very long hours to ensure that the proceedings of the House took place in a seamless manner, that questions were answered, and that papers were made available. My heartfelt thanks go out to them all for the hard work they have put into the Bill.
	I have spent some time thinking about how I would address the House on Third Reading. As I have said, for many reasons, the subject draws strong opinion from Members on both sides of the House. Just as the Civil Partnership 2004 Act was discussed in pubs, homes, church halls and communities throughout the country, so has the Bill. Over the past few months, I have listened carefully to many different voices within and outside Parliament. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have had passionate but fair debates. In the best traditions of the House, we have maintained respect for one another’s views, and had open and constructive discussions with all involved.

Tobias Ellwood: My right hon. Friend makes an important point on discussions with constituents. It might be wrong to generalise, but does she agree that there is a generational aspect to approaches to the Bill—the younger generation very much supports it, but the older generation is concerned about the society in which they have grown up?

Maria Miller: I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I am not sure whether he puts me into the older generation —I hope not. There are differences in views across the generations, and differences in views in different parts of the country and different communities. We must accept that people have different views for whatever reason. The most important thing is that we maintain respect for people’s different views. Such an open approach, which we have taken throughout proceedings on the Bill, has meant that the Government have been able to take action to improve the Bill, and to reassure hon. Members on some of the issues they have raised.
	The Government have throughout remained committed to the principle that people should not be excluded from marriage simply because of who they love. The institution of marriage underpins our society. Over the years, as society has evolved, so has marriage. As such, it has remained our bedrock. The values of love, commitment and stability underpin marriage—they are the values on which our society is built. Despite our differences in opinion, no hon. Member would dispute that those are the values we should promote. If the values of marriage are the values on which we want to build our society, they must be available to all, and they must underpin an institution that is available to all couples. Our country is renowned the world over for its tolerance. We have a rich tapestry of faith, belief and culture. That is unique—it is part of what makes us British. Those strong traditions will enable same-sex couples to marry.
	In no way will the measure undermine those who believe—for whatever reason, whether religious or philosophical—that marriage should be between a man and woman. They can continue to believe that. That is their right. No religious organisation or individual minister will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they choose not to do so, and nor will religious organisations or individual ministers be forced to have same-sex marriages conducted on their premises. The quadruple lock that the Government have designed provides robust and effective protections. The Government are also clear that the Bill does not prevent people, whether at work or outside, from expressing their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is their right. Teachers will still be able to express their personal beliefs about marriage as long as they do so sensitively and appropriately. Employers will be unable to dismiss or discipline a person simply because they say they do not believe in same-sex marriage.
	I acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed on those issues. The right for people legitimately to express their beliefs is why we have committed to do all we can to clarify or strengthen the protections on freedom of expression. I understand the importance that right hon. and hon. Members place on that.
	If, through the Bill, we can strengthen marriage and protect it as the bedrock of our society in these changing times for the decades to come, provide protection for those religious organisations and their representatives who do not want to marry same-sex couples, and reassure those who disagree with same-sex marriage that their right to express such a belief is protected, then we should do so confidently and assertively. I am confident that we have struck the right balance. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, and we have made changes on the basis of those concerns.

Fiona Bruce: The Secretary of State speaks of changes. Will she clarify how many Acts of Parliament will have to be amended as a result of the Bill?

Maria Miller: Many pieces of legislation will have to be amended, which is why we have provisions in the Bill, particularly on ecclesiastical law, to ensure that all required amendments are made. My hon. Friend is right that this is complex. That is why I have been at
	pains, particularly yesterday and today, to ensure that we do not introduce new concepts into the Bill. We want to keep clarity and focus, and ensure that we do the job. I believe that in the years ahead we will look back on the passage of the Bill, as we now look back on the introduction of civil partnerships: we will be in no doubt that equal marriage is right and we will be proud that we made it happen.
	It is important that we debated in detail some difficult and challenging issues. Yesterday, we talked about civil partnership. Equal marriage will correct something that is fundamentally unfair, and remove a barrier that prevents a whole group of people from access to an institution that underpins society. Civil partnerships were created to give same-sex couples equivalent legal rights to marriage at a time when society was not ready to give them access to marriage. Although I am clear that taking a decision on the future of civil partnerships now would not be a responsible thing to do, I have listened to Members’ clear concerns, particularly in the comments expressed yesterday. As such, we have agreed to undertake an immediate review of civil partnerships. That will be an important way to ensure clarity on how that aspect of legal recognition of relationships is taken forward.
	We have had further discussions today, with Members drawing on issues concerning humanist ceremonies. The system of marriage in England and Wales, as we discussed in great detail, is based on a system of premises, and not, as in Scotland, celebrants. A change of the nature proposed in today’s amendments would, as we heard from the Attorney-General, be a fundamental change to the current structure of marriage. As has happened in Scotland, it would also open to the door to a range of other belief organisations being able to conduct marriages. Such decisions are a matter for Scotland—this is a devolved matter—but if we are to discuss these matters it is only right that Members are aware that the amendments tabled could not preclude opening up the ability to conduct marriages to belief organisations other than humanists. The Attorney-General made an important contribution to the debate. New clause 15 would have given preferential treatment to one particular belief group and made the Bill incompatible with the convention on human rights, so I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for not pressing the new clause. I welcome that decision.

Christopher Chope: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the provisions of the European convention on human rights will not be compromised by the fact that the Bill makes unequal provision for civil partnerships?

Maria Miller: Yes, I can. I am glad that I can make that clear for my hon. Friend, and may I apologise to him for not taking his intervention yesterday? I could not quite hear who it was. Had I known, I would definitely have accepted it. I sincerely apologise to him.
	I accept that for some colleagues their beliefs are an insurmountable barrier to supporting the change, but to other colleagues I say, “Now is the time”. Let us not be sidetracked or distracted; let us not expand the remit of the Bill beyond its original intention; let us make equal marriage possible because it is the right thing to do; and then let us move on. I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I should point out to the House that I have had indication of no fewer than 14 right hon. and hon. Members seeking to contribute on Third Reading, in consequence of which I am imposing a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Yvette Cooper: I am proud that the Commons has reached the Third Reading of this Bill, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House also feel proud to support it and to be on the right side of history. I thank the Prime Minister and the Government for introducing the Bill. I am proud, too, that Labour votes passed the Bill on Second Reading and will do so again this week. We are strongly committed to the Bill.
	The Opposition have, of course, disagreed with the Government on some issues, including on the Bill’s handling of humanism, which we hope will be discussed further in the Lords. We also wanted early progress on opposite sex civil partnerships as an issue of equality before the law, but I hope that we have now agreed progress there. Nevertheless, the Minister will know that we have approached each of these issues, even when we have disagreed, in a considered way to ensure that the Bill can make progress, and I am glad that votes from Labour and across the House have ensured that no one now has any excuse to ditch or delay an important Bill that I think will bring happiness to many people.
	I thank, too, all Members who, because it is the right thing to do, have championed the Bill even when they have faced pressure in their constituencies not to do so. I thank hon. Members who sat on the Committee and worked hard at every stage to get the Bill through. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who have done immense work on the Opposition Front Bench, and my hon. Friends who supported them in Committee. I think that they, and certainly the Government, will agree that nothing makes us more grateful for the normal presence of the Whips—I am glad they join us today—than being charged with taking through Bills that depend on free votes.
	This is the right thing to do. This Parliament can now join Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Norway, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Uruguay, France, which has just passed its own legislation, and New Zealand, whose MPs last month celebrated their gay marriage legislation in fabulous style by breaking into song. We can only wonder what would happen if the Minister and I leapt up and started leading a Eurovision-style chorus of “Congratulations” or perhaps Abba-style—probably not “One Man, One Woman”, but certainly, “I do, I do, I do, I do, I do.”

Daniel Kawczynski: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will begin with an appropriate Abba song.

Daniel Kawczynski: The shadow Minister highlights other countries that have already introduced similar legislation. If we did not pass this legislation, would we
	not have to recognise the marriages of citizens from those countries who came to live or work in the United Kingdom or those who came here on holiday anyway?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We should recognise those people’s marriages. We should be proud to do so, and we hope that other countries across the world will join us, including countries where there is still terrible homophobic discrimination, which we should be fighting against. I hope we can lead the way by championing this Bill. We should remind people why we are doing this. It is time to give same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples to get married. It is time for equality in marriage.

Mike Freer: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for taking a chance on me. This week alone, two more countries and six states in America have approved same-sex marriage. Is not the tide of history with us and not against us?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right. I pay tribute to the work he has done to champion this legislation. I think we are on the right side of history by taking it forward. It is time to celebrate, not discriminate, when a couple decide they want to make a promise to stick together for as long as they both shall live.
	I have had many letters and e-mails since Second Reading; I want to share some briefly with the House. One man wrote to me describing the difficulties he had had being accepted by his family because of his sexuality. He said:
	“'My partner of 14 years is neither recognised nor accepted. It is however fantastic to hear politicians…standing up for people like me, ensuring that we can become equals at least in the eyes of the state, if not in the eyes of our parents and our religions.”
	Another wrote to me to say:
	“I’m a 23 year old gay man…I’ve had people tell me all my life that I am less worthy, wrong and sinful because of my sexuality, and although I’ve been incredibly lucky to have supportive family and friends throughout, it does grind you down. And it can hurt, really and truly hurt.”
	He, too, described the importance of seeing politicians in this House
	“so publicly and passionately support the rights of people like myself and many others to have a more equal standing in society is really one of the most empowering things that can be done—political leaders standing up for those whose voices so often get silenced. I truly feel it is an historic moment in Britain and all I can say is thank you.”
	That is what this Bill is all about. Rarely is legislation so personal. Rarely does this House have the chance strongly to reaffirm the equal respect we have for every human being, regardless of their sexuality, and the equal respect we have for their loving, long-term relationships.
	We have heard strong objections to the Bill in the course of these debates. In this House we show respect for each other’s views, even though we disagree with them. Some have been concerned about the impact of the Bill on their faith and some have objected to aspects of it on grounds of their faith. It is important for us to respect freedom of religion, and I believe that the Bill has done exactly that. I hope those Members will feel reassured that their concerns have been respected. Of course, no religious organisation or priest can be required to conduct same-sex marriage and there are multiple locks in the Bill to prevent that from happening.
	It is also important to remember that many people with strong faith, of all faiths, strongly support this Bill. We should not see it as something that promotes a secular-faith divide, because it does not. I am pleased, too, that Quakers, Unitarians and Reform Judaism have said that they want to be able to celebrate same-sex marriages. I am pleased that they will be able to do so as a result of this Bill. I hope that other faiths will change their minds over time, because that is freedom of religion too.
	We have heard other objections to the Bill in these debates. We have heard people claim that allowing gay and lesbian couples to get married will somehow undermine the marriage of heterosexual couples, but how will it? There are MPs in this House who want to get married who will be able to do so as a result of this Bill: excellent—I personally hope I get an invitation to the reception—but does that undermine my marriage? How could it—unless, of course, they want to marry the shadow Chancellor, which could pose a few challenges. This Bill does not undermine the marriage of anybody in this House or across the country. The idea that two brides tying the knot says anything about the relationship of their neighbours next door is simply ludicrous. Nor is it good enough to say that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, because marriage has rightly changed before and it can do so again. That is not a definition; it is discrimination.
	We have seen this subject become part of the internal debates within the Conservative party. To Conservative Members I would simply say that fighting over Europe is one thing—they are welcome to that—but I hope that they will stop fighting over this. I hope that they will join Members across the House in being proud of this Bill. I have heard many Conservative Members talk about the anger in their constituencies and the anger among their party members. I hope that they will now feel able to stop talking about the anger and to start talking about the joy. This is about the joy that we can deliver for those who want to get married just as their parents did, the joy that we can make possible for the couple who want to get married just as their sister or brother did last year, and the joy that we can provide by saying to couples across Britain, “We won’t discriminate against you on the ground of your sexuality. We respect, support and celebrate your relationship.”
	Members might recall that I argued on Second Reading that marriage was about the joy and the sorrow, about the excitement and the tragedy, and about the romance of the wedding day as well as the deeper romance of growing old and grey together, even once the party has faded. I gave the example of an elderly couple, one of whom was caring for the other who had dementia. I described the love, commitment and duty that that showed, and said how powerful that was, whether it was between a man and a woman, two men or two women. In response to that, I received an e-mail from a man who wrote:
	“I was particularly touched at your reference to a couple enduring dementia. This is precisely what my parents are now facing after 54 years of marriage. The example they have shown me over my lifetime and now that my mother suffers with the disease is precisely what marriage is all about. I try every day to live up to their example, as I enjoy a wonderful relationship with my partner whom I love very much. I expect in this day and age,
	and for generations to come, that we should be able to have our commitment to each other acknowledged in law in an equal way with our straight friends. Your argument is truly Christian in nature, entirely humanist and on the right side of history. My partner and I, our families, and our future children thank you from the bottom of our hearts.”
	I thank all those who are supporting the Bill. Let us be loud and proud. Let us start the singing. Let us celebrate, not discriminate. Let us pass this Bill. Let us put aside the anger, and let us hear it for the joy.

Nick Herbert: Earlier today, while the Health Secretary was responding to an urgent question on accident and emergency departments, I had to take myself along to the A and E department at St Thomas’s hospital because something was wrong with my eyes. I am told that everything is fine, but I had some drops put into my eyes and, as a result, I am now unable to see the official Opposition. The only thing I can see, and have sought to remark on, is the loud and proud and typically revolting tie of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). However, I notice that you are wearing the same tie, Mr Speaker. I therefore unreservedly withdraw my remark.
	The most serious concern that has been advanced about the Bill relates to ensuring that religious freedom is protected. The concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) are surely genuine, and we were right to pay attention to them. I would not support any measure in this House that would force a Church to conduct a same-sex marriage against its will. That principle of religious liberty is immensely important. The fact that the Bill protects Church organisations and that the Church of England has expressed its confidence in the locks that have been put into the Bill should give the House confidence that we can proceed with this measure. Of course there are other aspects of religious freedom that we need to protect. They were discussed yesterday and will be the subject of further discussion in the House of Lords.
	The essence is that no church will be forced to conduct a same-sex marriage against its will. Religious freedom cuts both ways, and those who have rightly spoken on behalf of religious freedom cannot ignore the cause of religious freedom for Churches that do wish to conduct same-sex marriages. What about the Quakers, the Unitarians or the liberal Jews; what about their religious freedom? My argument is that the Bill extends religious freedom and does not restrict it and that those who are concerned about religious freedom should support it. Those advancing these arguments need to say why they have not been interested in Churches such as the Quakers and why they believe that the law of the land should prevent those Churches from doing what they seek to do.
	Other arguments have been put against this legislation—that it redefines marriage for everyone, so that even if Churches are protected, the concern remains that it changes the definition of marriage for others, too. As has been said on a number of occasions here, how exactly does it harm or affect those who enter into a heterosexual marriage if a same-sex couple enter into a marriage, too? How does it devalue, change or alter the marriage they have? The truth is that this is not a measure that can remotely be held to do any harm to
	people at all. Absolutely no harm is done by this measure and a very great deal of good can be done by it.
	Less impressive arguments have been advanced in respect of this legislation. It has been said that because same-sex marriages cannot be consummated, there is some problem or lack of equivalence, or that because adultery provisions will not apply directly, there is a lack of equivalence. Actually, most heterosexual marriages are, sadly, ended by the cause of unreasonable behaviour, which could apply just as easily to same-sex couples. I think there was an unfortunate implication behind that criticism, which was that somehow same-sex couples were seeking a licence to enter a marriage in respect of which they sought to escape or avoid the vows undertaken. Of course, the absolute opposite is the case. It is right to extend same-sex marriage to gay couples precisely because it is a good thing if they enter into a loving and permanent commitment to each other. That is a good thing for them, for society and for families, and we should celebrate and support it.

Daniel Kawczynski: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a consensus across the country that this legislation is important and that we should back it? Even in my rural county of Shropshire, a recent opinion poll taken by the local media showed a majority in favour of this legislation.

Nick Herbert: I thank my hon. Friend and strongly agree with him.
	I was about to say that it has been suggested that the public are not with this legislation. Of course an element of the public are concerned about it. That much is clear, but it is also clear from all the independently conducted opinion polls—not those conducted by the pressure groups opposed to the Bill—that a majority of the public support this legislation and that the majority is increasing, as we have seen throughout the world. As for the idea of holding a referendum on such measures at any time, apart from being a bad idea in itself because the House of Commons decides these matters, such a referendum would be likely to pass this measure in any case because the public are in favour of it.
	When homosexuality was decriminalised, some Members of Parliament objected. When civil partnerships were introduced, some Members of Parliament objected. They were found to be wrong because society moved on. Attitudes change and attitudes to gay people have changed. The Bill will do no harm and a very great deal of good by celebrating love and commitment and by treating a minority equally. That is why we should welcome it.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: As is well known in this House, the Democratic Unionist party opposes this legislation and continues to oppose the Bill in principle. I want to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who served in Committee and faithfully put forward the perspective that we hold on the need to protect the traditional definition of marriage. I also want to thank other hon. Members who share that view, including the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Spelthorne
	(Kwasi Kwarteng) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who also served in Committee and did a commendable job in putting forward our perspective.
	I believe that marriage is foundational, that it is for one man and one woman, and that it ought not to be redefined. I believe that marriage is universal and not just for Christians, although I am a Christian and my stance on this issue, like that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is influenced by our Christian faith. I believe that marriage is for everyone, man and woman, who wants to take up that right in law. I believe that the definition of marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman should stand. I believe that marriage is beneficial, and that it is for the mutual help and support of husband and wife and for the procreation of children.
	Our opposition to the redefinition of marriage is not born of prejudice. It is not born of homophobia. It is born of a deep sense of our Christian faith, and I hope that that can be respected. Our Christian faith is important to us. It is what motivates us to take the stances that we take on many issues. It is shared by many people in our native Northern Ireland, where a high proportion of the population still go to church and more than half our children attend faith schools.
	The Northern Ireland Assembly recently voted not to introduce same-sex marriage in our part of the United Kingdom. I welcome the commitment that the Minister has given to seek the consent of the Department for Finance and Personnel, which is responsible for this matter in Northern Ireland, before implementing any amendments that would have an impact there. Notwithstanding that, however, we remain opposed to the legislation in principle. I was a member of the Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill that became the Civil Partnership Act 2004. I remember pointing out at that time that civil partnerships would inevitably lead to a demand for same-sex marriage and being told by the then Government that that was nonsense, that we were scaremongering and that it would not happen.
	The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) tells us that marriage has changed and will change in the future. When we talk about equality in marriage, where do we draw the line? There are some in this country who believe that marriage should be between a man and more than one woman. Will we not, in time, hear another demand for equality—the demand that a man who wants to be married to more than one woman should have that right enshrined in law? If marriage is to change in the future, will not the House, in time, be presented with proposals to give effect to the demand for equality for those who want to be married to more than one partner?
	We are told that we are on the wrong side of history. Well, time will tell whether those of us who take the stand that we are taking are on the wrong side of history. I have heard that argument many times in the past, and I have watched as the House has legislated time and again to undermine some of the fundamental building blocks of our society. I look around me, and I see the harm that that does to our society.

David Winnick: Who would the right hon. Gentleman say was on the right side of history as a result of the 1967 legislation that decriminalised homosexuality?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker. In respect of the Abortion Act 1967, I know that Northern Ireland is on the right side of history, because we refused to accept that legislation. The fact is that 8 million unborn children have not had the opportunity of life because of bad legislation in this House.
	I think that, when it comes to the wrong side of history, time will tell, and the judgment will come. I am happy, and my party is happy, to stand on our beliefs, and we ask for them to be respected. We may, in the end, lose the vote in this House, but that does not alter our opinion that this is bad legislation and that it is wrong.

Jane Ellison: Some of the arguments about the right side and the wrong side of history were advanced at the time when civil partnerships were introduced. I was not in the House then, so I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman made the case or whether other members of his party did, but the case was made by some that the introduction of civil partnerships would lead to the decline of society in some way. In my urban constituency in Battersea, it is not people coming together in love to form committed relationships who cause a problem; it is families breaking up in rancour who cause real distress in my community.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I hear the hon. Lady’s point, but in the context of this Bill, I simply do not agree that when we tamper with the fundamentals of our society, the result is necessarily a good thing for our society and beneficial in the long run. I believe in the traditional definition of marriage; I believe in the traditional concept of marriage and I believe that the Bill undermines that. I therefore believe that the House is making a mistake in pressing ahead with it.
	The stance that my party takes is not without support out there across this nation. We may be a small party in a small region of the United Kingdom, but on this issue we speak for millions of people across the United Kingdom who share our view. We tamper with these things and change these laws, and we may well come to regret the things that we sometimes do in this House and the legislation that we pass. Our party makes no apology for taking this stance, therefore.
	This evening, we stood outside with some of the Christian people who have gathered outside this building. They are very hurt. We talk about pain and hurt. There are a lot of Christians across this country, and also Muslims and Jews—people of strong faith—who are hurt by this Bill. I hope that will be borne in mind.
	I want to thank the hundreds and thousands of my constituents who have written to me in support of the stance I and my colleagues have taken on this issue. Tonight, they will feel very sad indeed.

David Burrowes: First, I want to thank the Clerks in the Public Bill Office for their patience, diligence and fairness in dealing with all the draft amendments that were submitted in the Bill Committee and the remaining stages.
	We are in an extraordinary situation for what is the Third Reading of a Bill that redefines marriage, and I never thought our Government would have done this.
	There was no clear manifesto commitment, no coalition agreement on it and no Green Paper—there was just a sham consultation—and there are no significant amendments to the Bill beyond the civil partnerships review. We have had programme motions that have denied all MPs the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in detail. Consciences have been constrained. Indeed, a recent private poll of MPs showed that at least one third of Members did not believe they had a free vote on Second Reading. Let us see what happens on Third Reading, but that will no doubt create a concern in the other place when it comes to discuss the Bill on 3 June, if it passes its Third Reading tonight.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their diligence in Committee. If we had not served on the Committee, there would have been almost no scrutiny of the Bill at all.

Peter Bone: We find ourselves in the unusual situation that none of the political parties put this in their manifesto. Does my hon. Friend agree that the other place will have complete legitimacy if it chooses to reject the Bill because the Salisbury convention should not apply here?

David Burrowes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and the other place is certainly looking in great detail at the way we have handled the Bill.
	I welcome, however, the fact that, after the 13 sittings of the Bill Committee and yesterday’s debates, the Government have finally recognised the concern that the impact of the Bill will go beyond the marriage ceremony. My constituents need an explicit assurance that the Bill will not curtail their reasonable expression of their belief in traditional marriage, so I welcome the Government’s late undertaking last night in relation to schools and free speech. We must go further than that, however. If Members believe in traditional marriage and in liberty, they should vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

Jim Shannon: I, in turn, want to thank the hon. Gentleman for his hard work in the Bill Committee. Was he encouraged by the Christian ladies and gentlemen who attended the Bill Committee over a period of five or six meetings and energetically supported us as members of it and by those who took part in the prayer vigil outside over the past two days and who prayed hard?

David Burrowes: I do indeed welcome their prayerful support and, indeed, the fact that there has been engagement from those who are on all sides of the argument.
	There has been much tolerance and respect in the debate from those on both sides of the House, but I must take this opportunity to say—I have informed the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) of my intention to do so—that there have been comments that have gone beyond tolerance. There have been intolerant comments that were, frankly, offensive to my constituents and many of his. How dare the right hon. Gentleman equate the position of Christian Members of Parliament such as me and others with the slave traders of Wilberforce’s
	time? Wilberforce supported traditional marriage and would, I am sure, have been on the side of the dissenters on the Bill.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that by playing the race card and accusing the Bill’s opponents of being in step with the racists and traffickers of years gone by, he is offending not just me—that does not matter—but the majority of the black and minority ethnic communities who are opposed to the Bill? He has offended the black majority Church leaders in his constituency and mine who wrote to The Times recently and said:
	“If the Government gets its way, it will not be a victory for equality. Equality requires diversity, and diversity requires distinctiveness, and marriage is and always will be distinctively a union between a man and a woman… The Government is not respecting difference, and it is not promoting a plural society.”

David Lammy: rose—

Julian Huppert: rose—

David Burrowes: Unfortunately, we are running out of time.
	What is pernicious is equating hon. Members’ opposition to redefining marriage with previous discrimination on the basis of race. That plays into the hands of those who have accused me and many hon. Members of being homophobic or bigoted simply for standing up for marriage—[Interruption.] I will give way to the right hon. Member for Tottenham shortly. Such intolerant reaction to our belief in marriage runs the risk of being fomented by the state orthodoxy in the Bill about the new gender-neutral meaning of marriage. For our constituents—those who really matter—those who disagree risk vilification and discrimination and they certainly will not get the protection they deserve under the Equality Act 2010.

David Lammy: I am greatly saddened that the hon. Gentleman chose to use the term “playing the race card”. My comments were merely sited in an understanding of equality. There have been many battles on equality in this House. The battles against slavery, racism and sexism were noble, and many people outside the House will recognise that the fight for gay rights is one of equality; it is not playing—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) must have a chance to finish his speech.

David Burrowes: The Bill is triumphed over as being all about inclusivity, when what it has done has caused division, not just in the Conservative party—that is not the most relevant point—but in the country. The settled, respected position on supporting civil partnerships and the previously united concept of marriage between Church and state have now had a wedge driven between them by the Bill. Indeed, we had late resolutions to try to deal with the inequalities that are still apparent. What unites the opposition to the Bill is an unshakeable belief that will not accept the state’s redefinition of marriage and will recognise only the distinctive value of marriage as the bringing together of one man and one woman.
	Throughout its passage through the House, the Bill has lacked legitimacy and scrutiny. I urge all hon. Members to exercise their consciences, listen to the real concerns of their constituents and join me in voting no on Third Reading.

Tom Harris: This is a great day for Parliament and for the country, and I pay tribute to the Government and the Prime Minister for showing the political courage necessary to prioritise this legislation. I pay tribute to those on my Front Bench for their constructive approach, which will make it more likely that the Bill will eventually become an Act.
	My only regret is that the debate is taking place in the absence of David Cairns, the late Member for Inverclyde, who was known, liked and respected by Members from all parts of the House. David was never defined by his sexuality, but he certainly found happiness and completion in his relationship with his partner, Dermot. I have no doubt at all that were he alive today he would be voting enthusiastically for the measure before us. Even though his name no longer appears on the list of voting Members of this House, I will feel David beside me as I walk through the Aye Lobby at 7 o’clock.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. In view of the level of interest, I am reducing the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to three minutes with immediate effect.

Stuart Andrew: On Second Reading, I talked about many of the letters of concern that I had received from constituents and reflected that that conflict was one that I had had in my life. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) talked movingly yesterday about the freezing effect, and she is right about that period. To realise that you were gay in that climate was difficult, to say the least, but I was one of the lucky ones. I had two great parents who supported me through that difficult time.
	Religious faith is not just the preserve of heterosexuals. One of my hardest challenges was balancing my sexuality with my faith. It has taken me years to do that, and as I said at the time, some of those battles were the hardest and darkest in my life.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in welcoming the vote in the Church of Scotland this week to allow gay ministers?

Stuart Andrew: I am grateful for that intervention and yes, I certainly welcome that.
	In the context of the Bill, I understand the anxieties of people involved in religious organisations, but I am convinced by the evidence sessions and the questioning that the locks in place secure and protect those religious freedoms. We have heard a great deal about the Church of England in these debates; there are debates within the Church of England too. I went to my own church
	and was a little anxious about facing people there and discussing this issue, but the majority in the room supported the Bill.
	Despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and I disagree, I pay tribute to him for his diligence in his analysis and scrutiny of the Bill. I sincerely appreciate his calm and measured tone. I just wish that that tone could have been adopted by everyone. The extremes on both sides of the cause have not acted well, and it has been disappointing, to say the least, over the past few months to hear some of the phrases used. Yesterday, the term “aggressive homosexuals” was just one such phrase.
	To that I say this: I am not an aggressive man, but I have had the misfortune of facing aggression in a violent, physical form, and no, I am not referring to that incident. [Interruption.] In 1997, I was attacked and beaten unconscious by three men because of who and what I am. That had a profound effect on me at that time, but in time I fought back, and what helped were the decisions taken in this place. Through a series of Acts, this House brought equality nearer. Where legislation led, society followed, and over time that balance changed and our society became more tolerant. Each small step forward felt like a huge leap forward for me personally.
	I joined the Conservative party for a host of reasons, two of them being a belief in freedom of choice and in allowing people to live their lives as they choose. This Bill has the protections for religious organisations that mean that they have the freedom to choose not to marry same-sex couples, but people like me and many others have the freedom to choose to marry the person they love. It therefore strikes the right balance.

Caroline Lucas: So much has been said about same-sex marriage over the past couple of days. It is important on the occasion of Third Reading to return to the fundamental principle that underpins what we are trying to achieve. That principle is equality. Ultimately, this is about basic human rights. Nobody should be denied on the basis of their sexuality the opportunity to be legally married.
	We are righting a wrong and I urge Members in the other place to remember that when they consider the Bill. Peers, including some but not all bishops, recognised the justice of introducing civil partnerships back in 2004, and I hope they will also recognise the justice of now granting same-sex couples the choice to enter into marriage, especially as the Bill has gone to great lengths to protect important religious freedoms.
	Colleagues have remarked on the historic nature of the decisions being taken, and I agree. We live in a world where 85 United Nations member states still have repressive laws against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, where same-sex marriage is still a distant dream, and where being L,G, B or T can in some cases be a death sentence. But some dreams come true, and today is an important symbolic as well as practical step forward for equality and human rights.
	I met a very inspiring campaigner at a trans networking event in Parliament the other day whose business card carried the strapline, “Tolerance is not good enough”.
	That neatly sums up what I want to say. Tolerance is important, yes, but we need to carry on for more than that. We need to fight for true justice, for true equality, for true LGBT rights, as well as for tolerance. For me, that also has to include the issue of equal pension rights for those in same-sex marriages and civil partnerships. I am saddened that we have not made more progress on that here today, but I hope very much that it will be taken forward in the other place, as I hope will righting some of the injustices that still remain for the trans community.
	But today on Third Reading is a time for celebration. For many hundreds of constituents from Brighton, Pavilion who have written to me in support of same-sex marriage, this Bill is about their lives, their loves and their futures together. I have heard many stories about why this legislation is important, including from one constituent who simply said, “Everyone should have the right to marry the person they are in love with.” Another told me that she hopes Brighton and Hove will be the first city to perform a gay marriage. To her I say, “Watch this space.”
	I also thank those people against changing the law who have lobbied me, all of whom have been respectful of my position and my right to support same-sex marriage. I know it is difficult for some to square the Bill with their understanding of marriage, but I maintain that it is wrong for gay couples to continue to pay the price for that by being denied equality. Equality and justice must underpin everything else—a principle and a priority, not just something tacked on to existing pledges to try to attract more votes. The majority view in the House today has reflected that, and I hope that it will continue to do so as we vote on Third Reading.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) who puts her case, as usual, with great sincerity. I will be voting against Third Reading tonight, partly because I think that the Bill is wrong; marriage is between a man and a woman. My real motive for voting against Third Reading, however, is the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill. We are yet again dealing with an amazing piece of important legislation that owing to the programme motion is going through without proper scrutiny in the House. Yesterday, whole parts of the Bill could not be amended because consideration of the amendments were not reached. I cannot even talk about those amendments tonight because I would be out of order. So we have again to allow the other place to decide on the amendments to a hugely important constitutional Bill.
	It seems extraordinary to me that for the Third Reading debate Back Benchers have been allowed 40 minutes, and you, Mr. Speaker, have had to impose a three-minute limit to allow as many as possible to speak. The idea that we can compare this to the days of Wilberforce, when he would talk for three, four or five hours, is absolutely ridiculous. I would go back to that system, and I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) might agree. We should not have had the closure every evening. Why could we not have talked until 10 or 11 o’clock tonight on Third Reading so that Members could have made their points? I would then have been much happier when the Division
	came that all the differences had been properly considered. I will end there, because other hon. Members want to speak, but I urge all hon. Members, for the sake of Parliament, to oppose Third Reading.

Diane Abbott: I simply wanted to say what a momentous piece of legislation this is. Some things we do in the House of Commons do not affect ordinary people at all; some things we do in the House of Commons are best ignored; but this Bill will make a lot of people’s lives much better. I have supported this cause all my political life, long before it was fashionable on the Labour Benches, and I never thought I would live to see the day when the Bill would approach its Third Reading.
	Members have talked about their constituents. I remind the House that I represent some people who are troubled by the Bill. Some of them come from countries where homosexuality is illegal. Some of them come from countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. I have had to say to them, “I respect your views, but I have stood for human rights all my life and I stand for human rights on this issue too.”
	We could not let this debate pass without mentioning all the ordinary people, all the grass-roots campaigners, who made it possible for us to reach this point. I think not just of people involved in their local or national campaign, but of the ordinary people who have showed kindness and decency and who accepted a child when that child was not expecting acceptance. They all played their part. We could not have this debate without mentioning Peter Tatchell, not always the easiest of comrades, but someone who has devoted his life to human rights. We could not have this debate without mentioning Ken Livingstone, who was the first local authority leader to bring in civil partnerships and show the wider political world that we could have civil partnership without the end of the world as we knew it. And of course there is Tony Blair, who brought in civil partnerships in the last Parliament.
	Some people listening to this debate will be thinking, “This is all very well, but there is war in Syria, climate change and a huge economic crisis, so why does this matter?” Let me tell the House why it matters. When this legislation finally goes through, there will be adolescents going to bed that night who are struggling with their sexuality and who, knowing that the law has gone through, will think as they go to sleep, “Maybe it’s not so bad. Maybe my life isn’t ruined. Maybe I can find some acceptance. Maybe I can come out to my friends, and maybe even to my mother and father.” If this debate and this legislation makes the lives of so many hundreds of thousands of young people just a little better, we will have done great work in the House tonight.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I call Dr Julian Huppert. If he can speak more briefly—he does not have to—more Members will get in.

Julian Huppert: I will try, Mr Speaker.
	On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we believe that the state should not bar a couple who love each other from marrying just because of their gender or sexuality, whether they are straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex or whatever, and that the state should not ban groups who wish to conduct same-sex marriages from doing so.
	This is an important day, and it is a day to celebrate. When my party passed a motion on equal marriage in the UK three years ago, I did not think that we would be able to get to this legislation so quickly. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), the previous Equalities Minister, for her determination which has transformed the issue and made sure that we could get here. I also pay tribute to the two Stephens, my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), who served on the Bill Committee. The Bill is right today and will seem even more right in future. In five, 10 and 20 years’ time, we will look back and see that it was the right thing to do.
	I am proud of the Bill as it is, although it could be better, and we have discussed some of the possible improvements over the past two days. Equal civil partnership is the right thing in theory and in practice, so we need to find the right opportunity and the right vehicle for introducing that. We have heard no good reason why in principle humanists should not be allowed to conduct weddings. The Attorney-General is an excellent lawyer, so I am sure that he will be able to find a way to ensure that we allow that to happen legally.
	This is a very positive day, but we should remember that there is still homophobia and transphobia in the UK, and it is even worse in other parts of the world, where people fear for their lives and it is illegal for them to be who they are. We must take steps to ensure that that finally ends. We must not send people back to places where they will be persecuted for who they are. I urge all hon. Members to support the Bill.

Charles Walker: This is not the most important thing to come before the House in this Parliament, or even this year, but it is a really good thing. I am delighted that the most celebrated friend in my household, loved by me, my wife and my three children, will have the chance, if he wants, to marry the man he loves. I did not come into politics to be defined by what I am against; I want to be defined by what I am for. Tonight is a good night.

William McCrea: I know that for some this is a day for self-congratulation. Others in our society and our country are deeply wounded. I humbly and unashamedly confess that I am a born-again, Bible-believing Christian. I fear that in many ways our nation is swiftly turning its back on many of the great principles it was built upon. Some suggest that we hold on to our traditional views of marriage because of culture or tradition, but I do not believe that that is so. I believe the biblical definition of marriage. I did not make it up; God gave it to us in his precious word.
	Some have suggested that over the years religious organisations and church councils have changed their mind on a number if issues, and indeed some have already changed their opinion on the definition of marriage. That might be so, but the word of God, by which all men and women shall be judged on the day of judgment, and the standards revealed therein have not changed. Man may have changed, but God’s word has not. We may be a nation that seeks to go back to the days of Judges, when
	“every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”
	I suggest that this legislation will bring our nation many problems, whether for teachers or in our day schools. Indeed, I certainly pray that God will deliver us even when the Bill goes to another place.

Edward Leigh: We are on the edge of a profound social change. What a pity there was nothing in the manifesto. What a pity we did not have a Committee stage on the Floor of the House. What a pity we had only two hours to discuss the protection of people in the workplace. This change has been made tonight without full discussion; now it is over to the other place.

Peter Bottomley: The Bill passed its Second Reading by 400 votes to 175. The amendments wrecking it were rejected by seven to one.
	We last redefined marriage in 1973 when we brought in the prohibition on same-sex marriage. I think it is time to undo that and define marriage as being between two people who are qualified to marry.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 366, Noes 161.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Billread the Third time and passed.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
	That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary Chris Grayling relating to the Rehabilitation of Offenders, the Motion in the name of Secretary Theresa May relating to the Police, the Motion in the name of Mr Edward Vaizey relating to Reducing the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communication networks, and the Motion in the Name of Alistair Burt relating to Further Amendments to EU Restrictive Measures Against the Syrian Regime.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Rehabilitation of Offenders

That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 26 March 2013, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Police

That the draft Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matters) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 26 March 2013, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Reducing the Cost of Deploying High-speed Electronic Communication Networks

That this House considers that the draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communication networks (European Union Document No. 7999/13) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter One of the Second Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-ii) and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol No. 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.

Syria (EU Restrictive Measures)

[Relevant documents: 35th Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2012-13, HC 86-xxxv, Chapter 4; 1st Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-i, Chapter 2]

Alistair Burt: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of EU Council Decision 2013/109/CFSP amending Decision 2012/739/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria; takes note of the deteriorating situation in Syria that has led to the deaths of more than 70,000 people at the hands of the Assad regime; and supports the decision of Her Majesty’s Government to agree with Council Decision 2013/109/CFSP.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the important issue of Syrian sanctions. In addition to the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my appearance today, the Government have sought to keep the House and the European Scrutiny Committee updated through statements, answers in the House and correspondence, including between the European Scrutiny Committee, which has called this debate, and the Minister for Europe.
	Today’s debate is the result of the European Scrutiny Committee report dated 13 March, which referred for debate on the Floor of the House the Council decision agreed by member states on 28 February. The decision amended the EU arms embargo to allow for the provision of non-lethal equipment and technical assistance for the protection of civilians. I apologise to the House that on that occasion the Government had to override the normal scrutiny process due to negotiations on the Council decision in Brussels going to the wire. I appreciate the House’s forbearance on that, and I welcome the opportunity today to debate issues around that Council decision and subsequent developments on Syria.
	Syria is one of our greatest foreign policy challenges, not least as it has brought about a humanitarian crisis on a scale not seen in decades. The enormity of death and destruction is horrifying. More than 80,000 people have died, a quarter of the country’s population has been displaced and more than 1 million Syrians have sought refuge in neighbouring countries.
	A year ago, 1 million people inside Syria needed humanitarian aid. That figure is now nearly 7 million, and the United Nations forecasts that it will reach 10 million by the end of this year—10 million people displaced by the Syrian conflict. To put that number in context, it is the combined populations of the cities of London, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool, and all are in dire need of shelter, water, food, health care and other basic supplies.
	As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly made clear, most recently in his statement to the House yesterday, our objective is to achieve a political solution to the conflict in Syria and bring an end to the terrible violence and human suffering. Sanctions are an important tool in achieving that objective, but as with any tool, they must be used intelligently to make maximum impact.
	Our initial aim in imposing sanctions was to cut off the flow of funds and arms to the Syrian regime, choking off its ability to continue to wage war against
	its people, and to increase pressure on individuals in the regime to end the violence. Those sanctions have had a profound impact on the regime’s financial flows and put it under increasing pressure, but they have not proved decisive. The Syrian regime has continued to receive material and financial support from its international backers and been able to continue its brutality. I am proud of the leading role that Britain has played in using sanctions to put pressure on the Assad regime. We must now play a leading role in refining those sanctions to ensure that they continue to support our overall goal of achieving a political solution and ending the violence and suffering.
	As the conflict in Syria deteriorated, it became clear earlier this year that elements of the existing sanctions package had become an obstacle to our efforts to help the opposition National Coalition to deliver life-saving support to civilians inside Syria, and an obstacle to our efforts to increase the pressure on the regime to end the violence. The Syrian regime has shown no remorse in targeting civilians, including those involved in distributing essential assistance. That is why we pushed to achieve an amendment to the EU arms embargo in February to allow the opposition to receive much-needed technical advice and assistance in addition to a greater range of non-lethal equipment.
	The breakthrough achieved by the UK in February has allowed us and other European partners to consider a greater range of measures to help to protect civilians in Syria. The Syrian opposition needs to be appropriately trained to respect the principle of international humanitarian law. The technical assistance includes advice to the opposition to help it to get on with the business of governance and saving the lives of ordinary Syrians.
	Since the amendment achieved in February, the situation in Syria has continued to deteriorate. Syria is an unmitigated humanitarian disaster. The Assad regime continues to use heavy weaponry and ballistic missiles on its own people, and there is increasingly persuasive evidence that chemical weapons have been used by the regime.

Gerald Howarth: The House is well aware of the dreadful situation in Syria, and of the atrocities allegedly committed by the Assad regime, but will my hon. Friend tell us more about the atrocities committed by the people to whom he wishes us to send arms? The House and the country need to be clear on whether the good boys are on one side and the evil boys are on the other, or whether there are faults on both sides.

Alistair Burt: As my hon. Friend is aware, it is clear that there are faults on all sides, but all the evidence collected so far by the UN indicates that a greater degree of atrocities have been committed by the regime than by elements of those opposed to it. He is correct to draw attention to the latter, as the Government do. Abuse of human rights is incompatible with our values and we condemn it everywhere. However, the opposition is divided into different elements. We wish to support and are supporting those that we believe are moderate, and those that have declared their adherence to democratic principles, most recently in April. They are under pressure from the more extreme elements, but we condemn atrocities
	on either side. We are working with those who we believe have the right values. Those are the ones we wish to continue to be supported.

Jeremy Corbyn: In the strategy that the Government appear to be adopting in contemplating giving arms supplies to one opposition group, are we not in danger of fuelling a civil war within a civil war? The only solution is a political one involving all countries, including Iran.

Alistair Burt: It remains absolutely clear that the UK objective is to seek that political solution. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is on his way to Jordan today to take part in talks. The UK has made no decision on the release of any arms or any lethal weapons to any part of the conflict. The purpose of seeking to lift the arms embargo is to increase pressure on the regime and to give the moderate opposition a sense that it has extra backing, but no decision has been made on sending any arms into the conflict.

John Baron: The Minister has rightly spoken of the atrocities committed by Assad and acknowledged the atrocities committed by rebel forces. Will he expand on the links between certain groups of rebel forces, such as al-Nusra, and al-Qaeda? Will he give the House an up-to-date sitrep on that?

Alistair Burt: Yes, indeed. Al-Nusra has declared some allegiance to al-Qaeda, which is one of the reasons why the United Kingdom has no contact with it. From what we know, there are a variety of different groups opposed to the regime and there are loose links between many of them. However, those in the National Council, with which we are working most closely—it has evolved in the past two years—do not want to be connected with those who have an allegiance elsewhere. They have declared their principles and values, which is why we wish to work with them. It is true that a variety of forces are now ranged against the Assad regime, but in seeking to support some of them, the House should recognise that there are those with good values who deserve to be supported as they seek to protect civilians against the barrage from the regime.

Menzies Campbell: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has heard the recent observation by a well-known commentator, who said, “If you’re not confused about Syria, you don’t really understand it,” emphasising the complexity of the issues with which we are dealing. May I offer him a parallel from the past? When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, those who were resisting them were supplied with a great deal of weapons. After the Russians left, and when it was necessary for the allies to take military action in Afghanistan, many of those same weapons were used against the allies. How can we ensure that what we give to the so-called good people does not fall into the hands of the bad people?

Alistair Burt: My right hon. and learned Friend is anticipating something that is not before the House. No decision has been made to introduce new arms into the
	situation. As we know, plenty of weaponry is already in the region. Our work has been to support the elements in the National Coalition who adhere to the values they have declared, and to provide non-lethal support and encourage them in looking after civilian areas. The dangers are real, as he makes clear. However, the point is not that no weapons are currently going in and that a change in the arms embargo would suddenly introduce them; weapons are already going in. The issue we are concerned with is how to stop the conflict. That is why we come back to the urgent need for a political solution.

Graham Stringer: It must surely be the Government’s prime objective to ensure that VX gas and weapons of mass destruction do not get into the hands of al-Qaeda. Is that not more likely if we give more support to the forces that oppose the Government, which include al-Qaeda? This is not just a civil war; it is a war by proxy between Sunni and Shi’a, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and Russia and the west. Surely the Minister can see that if those weapons of mass destruction get to al-Qaeda it will make this country more vulnerable?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman raises two separate points. First, I seek to make it clear that there is no support going to al-Qaeda elements in Syria from the United Kingdom. All our support is channelled through the National Coalition, which does not have a contact to supply any matériel to forces aligned with al-Qaeda. It is precisely to encourage and support moderate elements that the United Kingdom has been working so hard, with others, in the past couple of years to ensure that those elements have the means to protect the population they are looking after.
	Secondly, securing any chemical weapons that may be there is a live issue today that concerns all the nations surrounding Syria. The responsibility for securing chemical weapon stocks lies squarely with the regime. My point is that these issues are already ongoing; there are already risks and nothing we are seeking to do will add to those risks. The most important thing is to continue the work on political transition, and to take advantage of the opportunity that has been created in recent days and of the efforts that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is now engaged in. That is what needs to happen. Risks in relation to weapons are already there no matter what happens to the lifting of the arms embargo that we are discussing.

Robert Halfon: I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this matter. Is it not the case that 25 years ago in Iraq another Ba’athist party dropped chemical weapons on Halabja, and does he not agree that the Ba’athist party in Syria has now reached that red line? I welcome these EU sanctions, but NATO and the free world need to do much more to intervene to prevent a chemical holocaust.

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We remember with horror the events of 25 years ago, which heighten our concern about the stocks of chemical weapons. As the House is aware, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, and I have repeated today, that we have plausible evidence of their use, but we have not yet got definitive evidence of where they have been used or who might have used them. That
	work is now in the hands of the UN; we are pressing it to get on with the work, and we encourage all nations to comply and work with the UN in order to get a definitive answer. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that the House’s concern about chemical weapons is absolutely shared by Her Majesty’s Government.

Tony Baldry: Following on from all the points about atrocities, will my hon. Friend make every effort at every opportunity to make it clear to those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity, on both sides, that the international community will make every effort in due course to bring them to trial either before the International Criminal Court or a UN special court, such as happened after Sierra Leone? We need to make it clear that eventually justice will catch up with them.

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the House can be proud of the part that the UK has already played, not only in making it clear that there will be that accountability, but in providing the means to ensure that that accountability happens. Providing the opportunity for training, collecting material, instructing people on what evidence to look for and the like have been an important part of what we have contributed up to now. He is correct, however, that without fear or favour those who take part in atrocities, no matter on which side they range themselves during this conflict, should be subject to the rule of law and international justice.

Mike Gapes: If we are concerned about the civilian deaths from air attacks by the regime, would it not be better to do something about stopping the regime using aircraft and helicopters to attack civilian areas, rather than give sophisticated weaponry to people who might then hand it on to others to use against us in the future?

Alistair Burt: I repeat again, at the risk of riling the House, that we are not discussing whether the UK is providing weaponry. That point has been well made. The question of air cover has been discussed before. As the House knows, the Syrian air defences are not weak, and up till now no one has considered there to be a practical way of dealing with them, but part of what I will say is about all options being open. Lifting the arms embargo will increase the flexibility available to those who might need to protect civilians, or supply those who are protecting them, in the future. It offers that necessary flexibility, but no such decision has been taken.

Jim Shannon: I recognise that the Minister is held in high esteem in the House for his response to humanitarian issues across the world. He refers to the relaxation of the arms embargo. One of the great concerns among Members is the 3.5 million refugees and displaced persons, many of them children. Can he assure people inside and outside the House that the provision of humanitarian aid—clean water, sanitation, clothing, food, blood, medicines—will continue and that the people who are really feeling the pain of this conflict will be helped?

Alistair Burt: Absolutely. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that remains a matter of the utmost priority to us. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, the situation is immensely complex. There is a humanitarian disaster not only within Syria but outside, with, it is reckoned, 1.5 million refugees scattered throughout Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and surrounding areas, and we are working to provide support both outside and inside the country. Some 71% of the latest UN plea for support has been provided, but the rest is urgently needed. We have fulfilled our pledges, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the situation in the camps and for those being hospitable to people in their homes is dire.
	The hospitality being given in people’s homes is important—we think of this going on in Lebanon, Jordan and other places. It creates pressure on the domestic population, as rents go up and the local economy becomes distorted, and after a time hospitality becomes stretched and strained, so it is essential that we continue to provide support. I am proud of the way in which the United Kingdom, as the second largest bilateral donor, has been able to do that.

Julian Lewis: The Minister knows that my greatest concern is about the dangerous folly of doing anything to assist an alliance of groups that contain thousands of al-Qaeda fighters to get their hands on Assad’s chemical weapons. Rather than reiterate that, may I ask for an assurance that before there is any lifting of the arms embargo, there will be a full debate, with a vote, in this House?

Alistair Burt: In response to my hon. Friend’s first point, let me again make it clear that the efforts of the United Kingdom Government—this should not be left unsaid—are directed to supporting those who do not have the ideology and the declared aims of al-Qaeda. It is very important that that distinction is made, because those moderate forces are looking for recognition. They want to be able to say that they can hold areas and provide support to civilian populations, because they want to be able to provide a contrast with those who might not have Syria’s long-term interests at heart. That is why our support for the National Coalition is so important.
	In response to my hon. Friend’s second point, I can do no better than repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who said yesterday:
	“I regularly come back to the House whenever there is the slightest variation in the situation, so if there are any developments in the Government’s policy I would certainly seek to do so.”
	He later said:
	“If we come to a choice about that, it is a very important foreign policy and moral choice, which of course should be discussed fully in this House.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 908-909.]

Brooks Newmark: Jabhat al-Nusra and the Salafists were a fairly small about group 12 months ago. Part of the problem is that they have been much better armed and are much better fighters, so that elements in the Free Syria army, which is not as well armed as the Islamists, are flaking away to them. That is one area that my hon. Friend needs to consider. Another is that the UK has the chair of the UN Security Council—
	the presidency—next month. That presents us with an opportunity to pursue a radical agenda of engagement with all parties, perhaps including Iran, which has elections next month.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the Minister replies, may I remind all Members that this is a timed debate? The Minister has been generous in giving way, but this debate needs to end at 8.46 pm. At least nine Members, if not more, wish to participate, so we need to make a little more progress through the Minister’s speech if we are to get everybody in—unless those who are making interventions but are on the list plan to withdraw their names.

Alistair Burt: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is always difficult: it is important to answer questions as they come up, but I entirely understand the point of trying to move the debate on. I am very much in the hands of colleagues. I will answer questions, but I know we must move on to the speeches. My remarks will not be not terribly long after this, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I thought there might be a number of questions.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am only trying to be helpful to the House. I did not set the time limit for this debate; I am only trying to be fair to Back Benchers. I do not wish to chastise the Minister; I am merely pointing out the facts before me this evening.

Alistair Burt: I did not for a second take it that I was being chastised; I was only trying to be helpful to all colleagues—but let’s not go there.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) makes two points, and I absolutely agree with him. His understanding of the situation is clear. He makes an entirely fair point about how al-Nusra has been able to garner support at the expense of more moderate elements. He makes an absolutely valid point, which I hope I have also made in my speech. He is also absolutely correct to say that we will be leading the UN Security Council next month. The Foreign Secretary set out the situation in relation to Iran yesterday. Of course Iran has influence and an interest in the area. My right hon. Friend is keen that those who get round the table for Geneva II should probably be the original cast, but my hon. Friend’s point is well made.

Jim Cunningham: In any peace talks or conferences that might take place, has the coalition sorted out the leadership question? It is not clear to the public which members of the leadership will be involved in those peace talks.

Alistair Burt: We have worked closely with the Syrian National Coalition over the past couple of years, and there are recognised figures in it. The actual group that will attend the talks in Geneva—if indeed they take place there—has not been decided, but there are recognisable leadership figures in the coalition with whom we deal.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Alistair Burt: I should like to make a little more progress. I will then be happy to answer more questions, and perhaps wrap up at the end if there is time.
	In light of the developments that I referred to earlier, we need to consider again how best to use sanctions to find a swift and enduring resolution to the crisis. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House in his statement yesterday:
	“The case for further amendments to the EU arms embargo on Syria is compelling, in order to increase the pressure on the regime and give us the flexibility to respond to continued radicalisation and conflict. We have to be open to every way of strengthening moderates and saving lives, rather than the current trajectory of extremism and murder.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 905.]
	There is a glimmer of hope. The United Kingdom and France are working closely with President Obama and President Putin to try to find a political solution to the crisis. As I have said, we all want that more than anything else, but this is a fragile and fleeting chance. The Assad regime has made a lot of promises to negotiate but has never delivered on them, and the moderate opposition in Syria, the National Coalition, is losing faith.
	We and our partners in the European Union must play our part to make the talks a success. That means building leverage on both parties—the regime and the opposition—to do a deal. We must send a message to the regime that we will not stand by while it kills its people in increasing numbers and in increasingly appalling ways. We must make it clear that, if the regime does not ensure that these talks are a success, no option is off the table. We must also show the opposition that we will support their search for a just outcome that they can sell to the fighters in Syria and to the wider population.

Henry Smith: I wholeheartedly endorse what my hon. Friend is saying about the importance of working with our European allies and with the United Nations to put pressure on Russia in particular, because it is key to securing peace in Syria.

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Recent conversations between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, President Putin, Secretary of State Kerry and the Russian Foreign Minister have indicated a degree of involvement with Russia. Talking with Russia has never been off the table. Russia has great significance through its relationship with the regime in Syria, and we believe that it should now use that relationship to bring the regime to the table.
	We and key allies, including the US and France, believe that lifting the arms embargo will help us to achieve the goals that I have just described. It will strengthen the hand of opposition politicians in relation to the fighters, and the hand of the moderates in relation to the extremists. It will also show that we are committed to supporting them and have the flexibility to consider further action if the regime makes a mockery of this chance for a political solution.
	I want to make this Government’s position clear: no decision on arming the Syrian opposition has been taken. Amending the embargo on opposition forces would not mean that we would automatically and immediately begin arming them, although we cannot rule that out in the future; but even without acting on it,
	providing an exemption from the current arms embargo for opposition forces would send a powerful and timely signal to both sides. It would say to the Assad regime that a political solution is the only option, as there will be no military victory. It would tell moderate opposition forces and politicians not to lose faith in their fight against oppression or against the extremists who are seeking to capitalise on the continued instability.

Mark Durkan: Is the Minister saying that the message to the regime is that if talks do not succeed, nothing will be off the table? Some people in the opposition might interpret that as giving them a stake in ensuring that talks do not succeed, because guns and other collateral would then come into the equation. That would not help the moderates. Instead, it would help those who have a mindset of, “We’re going to be top dog, and top gun.”

Alistair Burt: If there were a realistic assumption on either side that the balance of arms could change sufficiently to give one side an advantage over the other so that there was a point to continuing the slaughter, the hon. Gentleman’s point would be well made, but the assessment that more and more people are making, on the ground and outside, is that a military solution is not possible. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, there are only two scenarios here: one is long drawn-out killing and humanitarian suffering on a massive scale, with no decisive result; the other is the peace opportunity that is now before us. I entirely take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but our argument is that, because of that assessment that there can be no military victory, let us give the moderates the sense of support and protection they might need to be flexible if conditions change. The important point is to press both sides to negotiations and talks, because that must be successful.
	We make no mistake: the regime is trying to change the balance of forces on the ground even as we talk, and will do so even as negotiators meet in Geneva. Lifting the embargo for the opposition will give us the flexibility to protect civilians, save lives and respond to a major escalation in the conflict, such as the use of chemical weapons. Even if the embargo were to be lifted, we are clear that lethal supplies would be considered only if they were a necessary, proportionate and lawful response to extreme humanitarian suffering and there was no practicable alternative. Any supplies would be carefully calibrated and monitored, as well as legal; they would be aimed at saving lives, alleviating the human catastrophe and supporting moderate groups. Our policy on Syria will continue to focus on bringing an end to the bloodshed.

Mark Lazarowicz: It is obviously a very difficult situation and I respect what the Minister is trying to do. No one believes that the UK Government are going to give arms to an organisation linked to al-Qaeda. The point is that in Syria, given what we have already heard about the strength of extremist groups, there is no way we could guarantee that such weaponry would not fall into the hands of extreme elements.

Alistair Burt: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, there are no guarantees, but over time we have established a series of links with moderate groups who would have no vested interest in
	allowing equipment that might be used against them to fall into the wrong hands. The hon. Gentleman anticipates a situation that we are not in, but I hope I can reassure him that the risk of diversion is very much on the Government’s mind. Pathways have been found for equipment and support, which are already going in, but I say again that Members need not suppose for a moment that stuff is not already ending up in the wrong hands. That is why finding a political answer is urgent; that is why the Foreign Secretary has gone to Jordan; that is why people are gathering now to seek that. The longer this goes on, the worse it gets, and diversion becomes even more likely.
	Let me conclude by saying that in both bilateral and multilateral efforts, including our vital co-ordinated efforts through the EU, we will continue to respect the rule of law for which the Assad regime has shown so little regard. At all times, our overriding objective will remain encouraging the parties to come together to agree a transitional Government who can start to build a stable, inclusive and peaceful Syria, which the people of Syria so much deserve. I commend the motion to the House.

Emma Reynolds: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the ongoing conflict in Syria and specifically amendments to the EU arms embargo. I commend the European Scrutiny Committee for calling this important debate.
	Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned and horrified by the violent and brutal conflict and loss of life in Syria. The death toll has now reached 80,000 people, and the refugee crisis is intensifying, with more than 1.3 million people having fled to neighbouring countries. As the Minister outlined, this is a humanitarian crisis on a scale not seen in decades.
	I am grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee for giving the House an opportunity to consider specifically, in detail, the decision made by the Council of Ministers in February to amend the existing EU arms embargo to allow the transfer of non-lethal military equipment to certain groups in Syria.
	The debate is timely, given that the EU-wide embargo is due for renewal at the meeting of the Council of Ministers next week. As a result of the Council’s agreement in February, the Foreign Secretary announced to the House on 6 March that the British Government would increase their support for the Syrian opposition and that that would include equipment that had previously been banned under the EU embargo. The change in both the scale and the type of material support from the United Kingdom clearly marked a new stage in the Government’s engagement with the opposition forces.
	Since that date, and specifically on 15 April, the Government have informed the House that, among other items, a number of vehicles with ballistic protection, packs of body armour and hundreds of radios have been transferred to the Syrian opposition as gifts from the Government. Equally important, we have received details about the ongoing training of Syrian opposition members in which the UK has been involved. I am grateful for further details provided by the Minister today and by the Foreign Secretary in his statement yesterday.
	We welcome measures taken by the Government that help to unite members of the fragmented opposition in Syria, help them to communicate better with each other, help them to gain a better understanding of international law and help them to protect themselves and civilians from the violence being inflicted on them by the Assad regime. However, we are extremely concerned about the suggestion that the EU arms embargo should be amended further, or rolled back completely.
	In the light of the February Council decision and the forthcoming Council discussion early next week, I seek further clarification of the Government’s position from the Minister. Will he tell us precisely what the Government will be calling for with respect to any alteration in the embargo next week? It has been suggested that they are considering two options. The first is to seek an exemption from the embargo for the national coalition of Syrian and opposition forces, and the second is to remove the “non-lethal” language to allow lethal equipment. That would effectively render the embargo null and void. Which of those options will the Government seek to secure on Monday and Tuesday next week in Brussels?
	What support, beyond that of France, have the Government secured in the other 25 member states of the European Union? It seems clear that Germany and Austria, among others, are opposed to the lifting of the embargo. If no agreement is forthcoming, will the Government veto the continuation of the embargo? Yesterday, in response to an excellent question from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) about the possible use of the veto, the Foreign Secretary said:
	“We will meet as Foreign Ministers in Brussels next Monday to look at those discussions in detail. I can say to my hon. Friend that we are prepared to do that if necessary, but of course we are looking for agreement with other EU member states.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 911.]
	Will the Minister confirm that the Government are prepared to veto the renewal of the arms embargo next week? I think that, if they intend to do so, there are further fundamental questions that they need to answer.
	First, the Government have spoken of the need to tip the balance in favour of the opposition. Can the Minister give us his assessment of the amount of weaponry that would be required to tip the balance against Assad, taking into account the support that we believe that he continues to receive from other states? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that the weapons supplied do not fall into the hands of extremists groups such as al-Nusra, which is aligned with al-Qaeda? Thirdly, given that the Foreign Secretary said that he could only offer his “best endeavours” to prevent British-supplied material from going to groups in Syria for which it is not intended, will the Minister tell us whether the Government would be willing to supply arms without any end-use guarantees? I am sure that the whole House would be cautious—several Members have demonstrated their concern today—about any step towards arming Syria’s opposition without a range of solid assessments and analyses from the Minister and his colleagues in the Foreign Office in regard to the end users of any British-supplied arms.

Martin Horwood: Is not the weakness in the argument that the arms may fall into the hands of the wrong people the fact not just that we can never give such guarantees, but, above all, that the wrong people already have plenty of sophisticated arms, which are being supplied perfectly legally from Russia, Qatar, Iran and everywhere else because there is no UN arms embargo?

Emma Reynolds: History teaches us to be extremely cautious. In the past, the west—ourselves, the US and others—has supplied arms to forces that then turned against us, so we need to learn the lessons of history and be extremely cautious.

Brooks Newmark: I totally respect the hon. Lady’s position, but history has also taught us that when we stood aside and did nothing in Rwanda, 800,000 people got slaughtered, and it took us four years to go into Bosnia, while, again, hundreds of thousands of people got slaughtered.

Emma Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the loss of life in Syria. The problem with the solution that the Government seem to be offering us is that it could lead to an escalation, not a de-escalation, of the conflict by fuelling the fires of the conflict, rather than encouraging a solution.
	The opposition in Syria is fragmented. What more can the Government do to help the moderate elements of the opposition unite and work together?
	If the Government believe that arming the opposition in Syria is now the best option available to the EU, how will that help halt the violence and secure a peace that lasts? Are there not significant risks now and in post-conflict Syria, and what would be the implications for peace and reconciliation between the country’s diverse religious and ethnic groups after the conflict?
	The Prime Minister was in Washington last week, yet in yesterday’s statement by the Foreign Secretary, we heard little detail about what the Prime Minister has discovered about President Obama’s thinking on arming the opposition. Can the Minister enlighten the House on that point? Moreover, can the Minister provide the House with more detail about the format of the US-Russian peace conference and what role our Government will play in it?
	Finally, if the Government veto the continuation of the arms embargo next week and after that decide to arm the opposition, will the Minister commit to bringing that future decision before the House, so Members on both sides can vote on what the Foreign Secretary yesterday called a moral issue?

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Lady has returned to the veto. Has she, like me, sought to establish whether on any previous occasion the United Kingdom has exercised a veto within the European Union in relation to the imposition of sanctions? If we were to do so in this case, what does she think the political outcome would be?

Emma Reynolds: I do not know of any circumstance in which the veto has been used in this area. I agree with the implication of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question and his concern: there could be implications
	for other parts of the world, such as, perhaps, Iran, where we have EU sanctions. That is a point worth making.
	I hope what is said in today’s debate and the caution urged by Members across the House will be reflected in the approach the Government take at the Council meetings on Monday and Tuesday. There is real concern across the House that arming the opposition will not guarantee peace in a country where sectarian, tribal and democratic impulses are all present. We are all united in our wish to see an end to the bloodshed in Syria, but serious questions remain about whether the Government’s change in policy will secure that peace. The test of the Government’s action will be whether it leads to a de-escalation, rather than an escalation, of the ongoing conflict and bloodshed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Eight Members are seeking to catch my eye to take part in tonight’s debate. I am not going to set a time limit. Instead, I ask Members to work it out among themselves. If each of them speaks for five minutes, including interventions, that will leave a few minutes at the end for the Minister to address any outstanding questions, so watch the clock, please.

Richard Ottaway: I support the decision made at the last EU Foreign Ministers’ Council. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has raised no objection to the decision to provide further non-lethal equipment to the rebels or to the subsequent decision to supply further equipment to the state of Jordan.
	This is a dire situation, and there are no easy answers. We are right to have stood back, and the EU arms embargo has been the right policy to date. Last March, however, the Foreign Affairs Committee raised questions for the Government about their intentions. The Foreign Secretary, in his letter to me dated 20 April, said that the policy was not “static” and that
	“We cannot stand by why the situation in Syria continues to deteriorate at an ever more rapid pace.”
	From that and from the Foreign Secretary’s statement yesterday, in which he said that he was quite prepared to veto the renewal of the EU arms embargo, one must conclude that although the Government might not have made a decision to arm the rebels they are seriously considering whether to do so.
	For me, that prompts three questions: is it legal; is it wise; and how will Parliament be kept informed? To impose military force against a sovereign state is contrary to the UN charter, but we are not looking at quite that state of affairs. There is no precedent for an intervention in what is essentially a civil war. The letter of 20 April also set out the legal basis for a humanitarian intervention, stating that any such intervention would have to be a
	“necessary, proportionate, and lawful response to a situation of extreme humanitarian suffering and…there is no practical alternative”.
	That clearly follows out the doctrine set out in the 2005 world summit that established the principle of the responsibility to protect, but the responsibility to protect has always required a Security Council resolution, which will clearly not happen on this occasion.
	There have been past interventions without a Security Council resolution—namely, in northern Iraq, Kosovo and Sierra Leone—but they were all pre-2005 and the new doctrine and they all involved repressed populations that were not in a civil war. I submit that Syria is different. This is a civil war. It is also, arguably, a breach of Syrian sovereignty. The Government have recognised the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as
	“the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people”,
	but that is not the same as recognising it as a Government. The definition of a Government is whether they are sufficiently in control of a territory and exercising governmental authority to constitute a Government. That is not the case here. That all adds up to a very large question mark, in the absence of a Security Council resolution, over the legal legitimacy of such an intervention.
	Secondly, is it wise? As Members have intervened to point out, this is now a regional conflagration. The Arab world is split, with the Saudis, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan determined not to let the Muslim Brotherhood take control of Syria, and Qatar and Turkey backing a Muslim Brotherhood constitution. Hezbollah is now engaged and Iran has indicated that a defeat for Syria is a defeat for them, too. That all adds up to its being highly unlikely that there will be a diplomatic breakthrough. Russia, clearly, remains as entrenched as it ever was.
	The dilemma for the Government and the Minister is that if they arm the rebels, it will clearly lead to a huge loss of life and a possible subsequent proxy war. Not to arm them, however, will see the Assad regime continue its barbarous regime. Either way, there will be a huge loss of life. I do not believe that the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister will rush this, and they are wise not to do so. Frankly, I do not envy them in the judgment that they have to make.
	I have concluded that the EU arms embargo has been the right policy, but that it has now outlived its usefulness. In the absence of a UN embargo, it is a very difficult situation in a complex arena. I do not believe it is sensible for the Government to have their arms tied by the EU embargo. I wish them well in seeking agreement to amend it and agree with the Minister that it sends a timely signal to the Assad regime. If he cannot reach agreement, he should be prepared to veto the renewal.
	Finally, on Parliament, the Foreign Secretary said yesterday:
	“Our assessment is that the use of chemical weapons in Syria is very likely to have been by the regime.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 906.]
	For those of us who were here in 2003, when we went to war on the strength of an intelligence assessment that none of us had seen, that rings alarm bells. If the use of chemical weapons is used as a justification for further intervention, I invite the Minister and the Government to ensure that that intelligence is made available either to the Intelligence and Security Committee or to a committee of privy councillors. Either way, it is essential that the House is kept fully informed.

Mike Gapes: I congratulate the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee on his contribution. I agree with everything he said, with one
	exception. I do not support the lifting of the EU arms embargo, and it is very important that we recognise that Britain and France are outliers in the European Union. Many other countries have been resisting moves by the UK and French Governments over recent months and there will be a decisive split in the European Union on this issue if the Government persist in the approach that they are taking. Perhaps that is what the coalition Government want, or perhaps it is what part of the coalition Government want, but it is not in our long-term interests or in the interests of future European co-operation on this issue.
	I have enormous sympathy for the Minister. He is a good man and he has been put up today to defend an extremely difficult position. He has to justify a very bad policy. It is a bad policy, because the prospect of our Government providing sophisticated weaponry at some point in the future, which is the intention and which is what this is all about and has been about incrementally over the past few weeks, means that surface-to-air missiles could be used to shoot down civilian aircraft in the region—missiles which might ultimately be found to have been supplied by the UK and France to elements in the Syrian opposition, and which might then have been sold, captured or handed over by people who defected from one faction to another.
	If we are going to put sophisticated weaponry into the region to deal with the brutality of the Assad regime, that sophisticated weaponry should be in the hands of people, first, who are trained to use it, and secondly, who will operate according to the laws of war and who are ultimately controlled by NATO powers—either through Turkey, our NATO ally, or through the UK, the French and the United States working collectively to bring in a no-fly zone.
	Two years ago, because of the threat to Benghazi, the coalition Government said that we needed to intervene with a no-fly zone. I supported them, as did most Members in the House. Now we have seen the deaths of tens of thousands or perhaps 100,000 people in Syria already and all the other consequences—the millions of displaced people and the refugees—yet we are not prepared to act. We are, of course, waiting for Obama, and Obama is not coming. He is not prepared to move. I asked the Foreign Secretary yesterday what his understanding was of the position of the US Government with regard to arming the opposition or a no-fly zone, and I got no answer.
	The real tragedy in this situation is that countries that could make a difference to end the conflict relatively quickly are sitting back, while other countries, particularly the Qataris, and Hezbollah supported by Iran, are fuelling the process—and Russia, because it wants to keep the Tartus naval base, is prepared to do almost anything to back the Assad regime. I am not holding my breath for success at the forthcoming conference. Either there will be no agreement on who will participate, or agreement will not be reached unless it is a Dayton-style process and everybody is put in a room and kept there, with international forces putting pressure on them until an agreement is reached.
	The prospect is that we will perhaps start arming elements in the opposition, but the conflict will continue for a very long time, with the sponsors of the Assad
	regime continuing to provide more and more weaponry. Russia will strengthen the air defences and the whole outcome will be a disaster. We need to be trying not to give arms to the Syrian opposition, and instead to be battering on the doors of the White House and the Kremlin and doing far more to get the countries that really can make a difference to stop the process before it is too late.

Robert Walter: I welcome this evening’s debate on the Council’s decision and commend the Government on securing the flexibility that we and other countries need to step up the pressure on the Assad regime. I am especially pleased that the Council document explicitly sets out the humanitarian context that underlies our rationale for action. The urgency for a political or, reluctantly, a military solution is the humanitarian imperative on which I want to focus for a few moments. We cannot talk of aiding the Syrian opposition without stressing the urgent need and plight of the Syrian people, who live in constant fear for their lives and who in their hundreds and thousands are fleeing every day.
	The Syrian crisis is entering its third year, and while we hope for a political solution, a humanitarian tragedy continues to unfold before our eyes. The situation for Syrians is desperate. Life for those caught up in the spiralling violence is unbearable. As ordinary civilians fall into ever deeper despair, the humanitarian need is growing more urgent by the day. According to the United Nations’ estimates, the death toll is now 80,000; 8 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance; and more than 4.25 million people have been driven from their homes by the fighting to other areas of Syria, with now well over 1.3 million refugees in neighbouring countries. The majority of these refugees are women, children and the elderly, more than half of whom are children below the age of 11, suffering first and foremost from psychological trauma. These figures are alarming, but from my own experience having visited two camps in Turkey, I can say that they do not capture or convey the full extent of the crisis.
	The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees conceded that the total numbers are far higher than have officially been accounted for. Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate rapidly as increased fighting and changing of control of towns and villages, in particular in the conflict areas, is driving more and more people out of the country.
	Beyond Syria’s borders, the problems continue. For the countries that have taken in those refugees—Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey—the burden that they face in economic, security and social terms, on their energy, water, health and educational facilities, is huge and proving a serious challenge that far exceeds their capabilities to cope with.

Penny Mordaunt: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says about the burdens put on Jordan in particular. Does he agree that more pressure should be put on the United Arab Emirates to contribute more to humanitarian relief?

Robert Walter: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I want to make a point about the international community’s responsibility, and that includes the Gulf states.
	If the scale of the humanitarian needs continues to outstrip the support available, the risks will only soar. The pressure on Jordan’s already scarce water, energy and education resources is enormous. Approximately 40,000 Syrian students have started attending classes in Jordanian schools, and health services are strained by the average daily influx of 3,000 refugees into Jordan alone. If that influx continues at that pace, we will be looking at 1 million refugees in Jordan by the end of the year.
	Where is the European Union and the rest of the international community in this devastating and desperate hour? Many promises have been made, but not enough have been delivered. I find it dispiriting that we have collectively fallen so far short of our obligations to help the Syrian people caught up in the turmoil and to alleviate the burdens borne by the neighbouring host countries. Appeals for funding to provide food, water and other humanitarian aid inside Syria have received only meagre support, while the UN Refugee Agency says that its appeal for half a billion dollars was only one-third funded. As a result of the woeful state of funding, the UN and other aid organisations can reach only 1.5 million of the people in desperate need, of whom there are probably around 3 million.

Nicola Blackwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Robert Walter: I am very conscious of the time limit that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have placed upon me and so will take no more interventions.
	There was a conference in January at which $1.5 billion was pledged. The Foreign Secretary reported yesterday that payments have now reached 71% of the amount pledged, but that is still nearly half a billion dollars short. I think that we can be proud of honouring our financial commitments, but we know that there are still countries that have not done so. That is not good enough. When the Foreign Secretary goes to Brussels on Monday, there must be progress on dialogue. In the long term, the whole international community will have to pull together to find a solution to the conflict.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that we are having this debate and hope that at the meeting in Brussels the Government will not use their veto and lead us into the danger of supplying arms to Syria. For some time now the Foreign Office has been chatting quite openly about the possibility of supplying arms. Indeed, in a letter to me of 22 April the Minister stated:
	“As things stand today, there is going to be a strong case as we come towards the end of May, for the lifting of the arms embargo on the Syrian National Coalition, or some very serious amendment of the EU arms embargo”.
	I just make the point, as others have, that we would be supplying arms to people we do not know. We do not know where those arms would end up or how much worse the conflict would get as a result. Anyone who doubts the leakage of arms should think carefully about the way the USA raced to supply any amount of arms to any opposition in Afghanistan in 1979, which gave birth to the Taliban and, ultimately, al-Qaeda. We should
	think very seriously before doing that. I hope that we do not end up with any arms supplies, or indeed any UK involvement in the conflict.
	There is obviously a horrific situation in Syria, with tens of thousands dead already and hundreds of thousands of refugees in neighbouring countries, and the situation will probably get far worse for them all. That is not to say, however, that there are not huge internal conflicts within Syria or that the Assad regime has not committed enormous human rights abuses, but the west has a very selective memory on this. There was a time when western Governments were happy to co-operate with President Assad on many issues. The Assad regime received very large numbers of refugees from Iraq—mainly Palestinians driven out of Iraq after the US invasion. One thinks of the plight of Palestinian people who have been driven from country to country for the past 60 years. The anger in those refugee camps will be the start of the conflicts and wars of tomorrow. There has to be a recognition of human rights and human justice.
	However, this war is becoming a proxy war for all kinds of interests. Let us just think of the countries and organisations already involved, by supplying arms, funding or what is euphemistically called non-lethal assistance. The European Union is clearly very involved, as is the United States, and Russia is clearly involved in supplying arms to the Assad Government and protecting its own base there. The Gulf Co-operation Council countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are supplying vast amounts of money and arms to the area. Iran feels under threat and thinks that it is next on the western countries’ hit list, so it is presumably helping the Assad regime in some form. Turkey is a neighbouring country that is both receiving refugees and supplying some weaponry and assistance. Israel has now got involved, with reports of the bombing that took place last week. In today’s edition of The Guardian there is a report of a land incursion near the Golan Heights that was beaten off by certain forces, we know not which.
	This is a time, surely, to reflect on the western strategy in dealing with all the issues with which we have been confronted since 2001. In Afghanistan, we have spent a lot of money and lost a lot of soldiers. Lots of civilians have died, and the country remains poor, corrupt and divided. Iraq is a place that can hardly be called at peace. In Libya, we went in with the no-fly zone and spent an awful lot of money and time bombing large numbers of people, and one could hardly say that there is a western-style liberal democracy there at present. Syria was a colonial creation. The French were very good at oppressing Syrian nationalism in the 1920s, and now the country is in danger of splitting apart altogether.
	If there is to be a political solution, which the Minister says that he wants, the conference that is being planned looks increasingly like a conference to impose some kind of victorious solution. A conference must include all the countries of the region and all the parties that are in any way involved in this conflict, obviously including Iran, and must recognise the role that Israel is playing. The west was incapable of getting the nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference for a nuclear-free middle east going, so I hope that it is more successful in getting this conference going.
	Finally, will the Minister give an absolute assurance that there will be a debate and a vote in this House before any precipitate action is taken and before any
	arms are supplied to anybody, so that those of us who disagree with that proposal will get the chance to express our dissent?

Martin Horwood: Let me start with a note of criticism that relates not to our policy on Syria but to the scrutiny of European documents in this place. The Council decision was taken on 28 February and referred to this Chamber by the European Scrutiny Committee back in March. It is now nearly June; in fact, the three-month arms embargo to which the decision referred has nearly finished. This is not a criticism of the Minister, and certainly not of the Chair. I am afraid that Government business managers must address the issue, and we must all try collectively to carry out European scrutiny in a much more timely and effective fashion.
	I strongly welcome much of what the Minister said, particularly his strong emphasis on the main focus of British policy being the achievement of a peaceful political solution. That has to be right, and it has to be our main objective in every decision we take. The Geneva peace process that we hope will develop over the coming months is central to this, and the role of Russia and other countries in the region is a crucial part of that process.
	Some slightly ill-judged questions have been asked during the debate. The hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who made a very wise speech, asked at one stage whether it would be legal for us to intervene in the dispute in Syria, yet I have not heard anyone on the Government Benches saying that we should intervene. We are, in the end, talking only about the possible partial lifting or changing of an arms embargo in a country in which there is no universal arms embargo. In fact, arms are flowing into the country, funded, in the case of the regime, by Russia, supported by Iran and by Hezbollah. The arms that are flowing to the jihadi elements such as Jabhat al-Nusra and possibly al-Qaeda are, by all accounts, funded from within the Gulf. Those arms are flowing in completely legally because of the lack of a UN arms embargo.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) asked whether we were fuelling the fire. It is quite difficult to see how it could be fuelled any more—there is already an inferno. In effect, the EU arms embargo is a little like a sticking plaster floating in a flood. The country is already awash with arms. The most sophisticated arms are going to the regime and, I am afraid, to the jihadis, who are gaining ground against other elements.
	As I said, I am worried about the tone of some Members’ speeches. I admire in many respects the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but he fell foul of this trap. To talk as though no democratic or moderate force is present in the country—to simply ignore its existence—is to make a fatal error. We have fallen into that trap in many parts of the world over the decades. We have assumed that democracy, moderation and the rule of law could never exist in Latin America, eastern Europe or Africa, but one after another, the peoples of those continents and regions have shown
	that they are capable of fighting for freedom and democracy without falling into the hands of extremism. If the Arab spring taught us anything, it was that Arabs too can be moderate, Arabs too can fight for democracy and Arabs too can resist the temptations of extremism.
	The Syrian conflict did not begin with western intervention. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Islington North did strongly imply that, but we will both have to check the record. The Syrian conflict began with Syrian people rising up against a dictatorship, in exactly the same way as the conflicts in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, and the conflicts that are still tentatively going on in other countries. If we talk as if this is an endless and inevitable bloodbath carried out by wild-eyed foreigners, we do a grave injustice to those who are trying to promote values that we would recognise. The Syrian National Coalition has endorsed the values of democracy, pluralism and the rule of law. [Interruption.] There is laughter behind me. I am surprised that Members think that this is funny.
	The Syrian National Coalition and the Free Syrian army are implicated in crimes. Those should be investigated and we should put intense pressure on the coalition to clean up its act and ensure that its fighters respect civilian populations. We must do our best to make these people, who are clearly no angels, behave in a way that would make us proud to support them. To simply ignore them and assume that the conflict will end up as a Sunni-Shi’a battle between the Assad regime and jihadis could be an historic mistake.
	As I have said, the most important thing is that we do everything we can to support the Geneva process and a regional, political solution. That has to involve Russia because it is critical to the process. It will inevitably draw in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, although I am not sure whether it is practical to have those two countries at the Geneva peace conference because it might end up as more of a Sunni-Shi’a fight than it was before. We have not only a political and diplomatic duty, but a moral obligation to ensure that the peace process works. Provided that they have not been annihilated in the meantime, present as partners in that peace process must be those who are fighting for freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

Brooks Newmark: Although this debate is somewhat retrospective, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) pointed out, it raises important questions about our current and prospective roles in the conflict in Syria.
	I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter). I have spent seven years travelling to Syria and have had the opportunity to meet Bashar Assad and other members of the regime several times. The tragedy that is unfolding for the silent middle in Syria is terrible to behold. It is a beautiful country that is being dismembered day by day. We must think very carefully about our next steps.
	What is the situation today? On one side is the Assad regime, which is responsible, as we have heard, for more than 80,000 deaths, more than 1 million refugees and more than 4 million internally displaced people. The regime has 300,000 soldiers plus the dreaded Shabiha, 16,000 pieces of heavy artillery and an air force. It has
	the Russians on its side, who are providing hardware such as S300s, Yakhont surface-to-ship missiles and the most robust air defence system in the middle east other than Israel’s, as well as military advisers who are increasing in number day by day. It also has the Iranians on its side, who are providing the Revolutionary Guard and strategic advice, and it has Hezbollah on its side. It has electronic intelligence, money and arms provided by the Iranians, and it even has the Shabiha being formed into a national defence brigade by the Iranians, who are giving direction.
	What does the opposition side have? Simply, it has two groups that are highly fragmented—the FSA, which has about 30,000 people, led by General Idris, who essentially have just small arms at their disposal; and on the other side, as many colleagues have said, the Salafis, who have about 3,000 to 5,000 people and are themselves fragmented. We have heard about Jabhat al-Nusra, but there is also Liwa al-Islam, Liwa Saqour and Kata’ib Ahrar al-Sham, among other Islamist groups that are fighting there.
	So we have an asymmetric war in which Bashar Assad has no incentive whatever to negotiate seriously. What are our options? They are fourfold. One is a containment strategy that would prevent the conflict from spreading, but unfortunately it would merely lead to more death. Another is a no-fly zone, as proposed by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). That would indeed tip the balance, but it would put the lives of our Air Force pilots at risk, and I do not believe that after Iraq and Afghanistan, the military establishment in this country has any appetite for that.
	The third option is lifting the arms embargo, which I believe would put pressure on Bashar Assad. However, as the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said—I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) will also make this point when he gets his opportunity to speak—there is a risk that arms may fall into the wrong hands. However, the signal that we would send by lifting the arms embargo would put pressure on the regime.
	The final option is a radical diplomatic engagement strategy. In that regard, we have two opportunities before us. One is the fact that the UK holds the presidency of the UN Security Council next month, and the other is that there are Iranian elections next month, which may provide an opportunity for us to press the reset button regarding engagement with Iran. As the hon. Member for Islington North said, we need to engage with all parties—the Gulf states, Turkey, the EU and the US as well as Syria, Russia and Iran.
	Time is running out. We must show Bashar Assad at Geneva that he is at the last chance saloon. I encourage the Foreign Secretary to exert pressure through a two-pronged strategy of radical diplomatic engagement with all parties and a real threat of lethal support to the FSA. Only then will there be a real prospect of ending the tragedy unfolding in Syria.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We have two more speakers. If each takes five minutes and no more, we will have a few minutes for the Minister at the end. I call Robert Halfon.

Robert Halfon: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to raise three points. First, I welcome the renewal of restrictive measures against Syria and any amendments that increase pressure on the Assad regime, but I fear that they do not go far enough. Secondly, the Government and the EU need to take further action against groups, particularly Hezbollah, that support the Syrian regime. Thirdly, this is not about intervention but about muscular enlightenment, and we must act now. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) said that the Government’s actions were fuelling the conflict, because they have taken every diplomatic course, yet 80,000 people have been killed in the past three years.
	I strongly support the McCain plan, which states that we need to work together as an international community to protect civilians by suppressing Assad’s air defences. The advantages of following that policy are plentiful. It would give us safe space where essential humanitarian aid could be given out, especially medical supplies, food and water, and a valuable area where the anti-Assad forces could train and become a more effective fighting force.
	We talk about the problem with arming the opposition, but the fact is that because we have done nothing over the past two years—I am talking not about our country but about the free world—the Islamists have inevitably filled the vacuum. We must not forget that organisations such as Hezbollah are arming the Islamist groups, which is why we have to identify the correct opposition groups that believe in a more democratic and free Syria. I believe that we can do that.
	I mentioned chemical weapons in my intervention on the Minister, and we must find out which companies have supplied the Assad regime with chemical materials. We know that up to 500 companies supplied Saddam Hussein with the chemical weapons that allowed him to attack Halabja, and I hope that the Government will look into the issue. We must proscribe Hezbollah—not just the armed wing but the political wing—because of its activities in supporting the Assad regime and the suppression of the people.
	No. 10 Downing street said in April 2013 that there is “growing evidence” that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) said that we need evidence for that, but we have seen it on BBC television. I do not want to go back 25 years and let another Halabja happen, and it looks like that is coming. We must take action now.

Richard Ottaway: rose—

Robert Halfon: I will not give way because my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) wants to speak. We have done everything possible diplomatically, and it is right that we take further action in supporting the right opposition groups, creating safe havens, and showing people that we want to stop mass genocide.

John Baron: I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that Syria is a melting pot for a proxy war that is being fought out
	either directly or indirectly at various levels, whether it is Sunni versus Shi’a Muslims; the west versus China or Russia; concerned minorities within the country, such as Alawites and Christians, against what could follow; or Iran versus Saudi Arabia. It is a crossing point for conflict, and I urge the Minister and the coalition Government to think carefully before they pour more arms into a conflict that could not only escalate the violence within the civil war, but lead to an escalation of an arms race beyond Syria’s borders which, at the end of the day, could be a mistake of historic proportions.
	History is very important. Our track record of arming groups or individuals is not good, no matter what anybody says. We armed the mujaheddin, and there is a fair chance that a good number of those weapons were used against us. We armed Saddam Hussein and supported him in his war against Iran—again, some of those weapons were probably pointed at us. History is important because it teaches us that if we support, arm and intervene in regimes, civil wars and conflicts, often what we are trying to remove or put right becomes embedded even further.
	Look at our efforts since the second world war to take on communist regimes around the world—in Korea, China or Vietnam. Despite western interventions, those regimes are essentially still in place. If our goal is to create a sort of stability and liberal democracy of our making, we have only to look at what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, where democracy is not flourishing, despite the high cost in lives and treasure. It is flourishing in north Africa and other regions of the middle east where the west has played a much more minor role.
	I urge the Government to think carefully before going down the road of arming the rebels. The Minister was right to say that that is not the narrow debate we are having tonight, but he must accept that we are debating an EU Council decision made on 28 February which is up for renewal—or certainly revisiting—on 1 June, and he cannot deny that the Government have been flying kites on this issue. We are therefore right to raise it on the Floor of the House tonight, particularly given that the decision will be revisited shortly—on 1 June, I understand.
	I ask the Minister to consider one or two other points. We do not know much about the rebel forces, but we do know that some are linked to al-Qaeda and some have committed atrocities. Tracking and tracing weaponry that we put into Syria because we would deal only with the moderate elements is beyond the capability of any western Government, unless we had troops on the ground to monitor the situation more closely, and I am sure the Minister will not suggest that course of action.
	There can be little doubt that the more weapons we put into a conflict, the more the violence escalates. The idea that we can put weapons into a civil war and not inflate or escalate the violence beggars belief. Of course putting more weapons in will increase the violence. That is why Oxfam and a number of charities that have people on the ground have come out publicly in the past week or two to say, “Do not do it. Do not go down that road, because bad things will happen.” There is already
	a humanitarian crisis in Syria. Pouring more weapons into the conflict cannot do any good; it can only escalate the violence within the country.
	In the minute I have left, I urge the Government instead to focus on diplomacy. Diplomacy has not yet run its course. We have the conference suggested by the Russians, which we should pursue to the very end. We should also do what we can on the humanitarian side, where more can be done. Hon. Members have made a number of suggestions that we should explore, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) made the point that we could do more from a humanitarian point of view.
	One last time, I urge the Government to refrain from exploring the view that we should arm the rebels. Syria is the crossing point of a conflict that arming the rebels could escalate. We could be very sorry for what follows.

Alistair Burt: I thank all colleagues for their contributions to this short debate. We have covered a lot of ground, and I appreciate how colleagues have handled it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) reminded me of the line from “Argo”, which could have been used in a number of other films. There are no good choices. They are all bad choices. What we are trying to do is make the best of a very difficult situation. Virtually every colleague understood the complexity and difficulty of the situation, and that, after two years of unrelenting killing by the regime, we are left with very difficult choices.
	I will do my best to cover a number of points made in the debate, but colleagues will appreciate that I might be unable to cover every point made. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) raised a number of questions. If she looks back on my responses to interventions, she will see a number of the answers, such as on the balance of weaponry and diversion. I understand the issues and try to do my best to deal with them.
	The Government are seeking consensus with our EU partners. The sanctions stand or fall by consensus. Clearly, the Government are determined to try to get consensus within the EU. If consensus is not possible and the sanctions fall, we would be prepared to introduce domestic sanctions to cover the gap, but our intention and determination is to do things by consensus.
	I have sought to reiterate to the House that our policy remains to seek a political solution. A number of speakers were anticipating a point that we have not reached. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) said, that is not illegitimate in this debate, but I firmly counsel colleagues that questions about whether we should arm people are not on the table. He and other colleagues cannot believe for a second that the risks and the dangers, such as diversion, are not top among the concerns of colleagues in the Foreign Office and throughout the Government. As a number of speakers said, however, the situation is already dire. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and other colleagues spoke of what is already happening and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) and others spoke of the humanitarian situation. Changing the EU arms embargo will not suddenly make the situation worse. It is already horrendous. We are trying to do something different.
	The purpose of seeking to lift the arms embargo is to give the flexibility to which my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and for Braintree (Mr Newmark) referred. Lifting the embargo gives flexibility, assists the moderates against the extremists, assists the politicians against those who wish to see solely a military solution, and gives flexibility in circumstances we do not know. Unless it is lifted, the process of lifting it in difficult circumstances would be almost impossible. Decisions after that will be of enormous complexity and difficulty, and the Government are well seized of that.
	I cannot stress often enough to the House the importance the Government place on the current political process, and its urgency. That is foremost in all our minds. Colleagues across the House have spoken about the impossibility of the military situation, and that is why it is so important that the Foreign Secretary is backed wholeheartedly in the efforts that he and others are making to achieve peace.
	Finally, on the point about coming to the House, it is important to repeat the remarks the Foreign Secretary made yesterday:
	“men, women and children…suffering virtually every kind of weapon that man has ever invented being dropped on them while most of the world denies them the means to defend themselves. If we come to a choice about that, it is a very important foreign policy and moral choice, which of course should be discussed fully in this House.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 909.]
	He drew attention both to the urgency of the situation, what is happening at the moment, and his determination to have the matter fully discussed.
	One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 16(1)).
	Question agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of EU Council Decision 2013/109/CFSP amending Decision 2012/739/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria; takes note of the deteriorating situation in Syria that has led to the deaths of more than 70,000 people at the hands of the Assad regime; and supports the decision of Her Majesty’s Government to agree with Council Decision 2013/109/CFSP.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 8 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)).

Financial Assistance to Industry

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in respect of Beechbrook Capital as part of the Business Finance Partnership, sums exceeding £10 million and up to a cumulative total of £20 million.

Education

That the draft Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (Consequential Amendments to Part 1 of the Education and Skills Act 2008) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 14 March, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.
	That the draft Duty to Participate in Education or Training (Alternative Ways of Working) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 14 March, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mr Syms.)
	Question agreed to.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
	That:
	(1) the matter of the Government’s Legislative Programme as outlined in the Queen’s Speech as it relates to Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 12 June at 9.30 am and 2.00 pm to consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
	(3) the Chair shall interrupt proceedings at the afternoon sitting not later than two hours after their commencement at that sitting.—(Mr Syms.)

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY

Ordered,
	That the Motions in the name of Secretary Vince Cable relating to Financial Assistance to Industry in respect of investments to support lending to small and medium-sized enterprises and in respect of early stage venture capital funds investing in small and medium-sized enterprises shall be treated as if they related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instruments be approved.—(Mr Syms.)

PETITIONS

Objections to a Free School (Edgware)

Matthew Offord: I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Hendon, and specifically on behalf of the Broadfields Estate residents association.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Residents of Hendon,
	Declares that the Petitioners oppose the Avanti House School development on Broadfields, Edgware; further that the petitioners note that Avanti House School have identified land between Hartland Drive and Broadfields Primary School for a new school which would accommodate 1680 pupils and that sport pitches are planned to be placed on green belt land; further that the petitioners do not believe that the area can accommodate this and the proposed school will not actually serve the Broadfields area or even the Borough of Barnet; further that pupils would arrive by cars and buses adding to already congested roads and that the north part of Broadfields is surrounded by green belt land and access is possible via only two roads meaning the area is only able to handle residential traffic. This development threatens to cause traffic chaos and ruin the lives of our local community.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government not to support the relocation of Avanti House School to the Broadfields site in Edgware, and draw attention to this petition and to a second submitted to Barnet council, containing 1,002 signatures.
	And the Petitioners remain, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	[P001179]

Closure of Rhyl Crown Post Office

Chris Ruane: I wish to present the following petition to Parliament on behalf of the residents of Rhyl and the Vale of Clwyd, who are totally opposed to the proposal by Post Office Ltd to
	franchise Rhyl Crown Post Office. They believe that the proposal will severely damage the provision of services in Rhyl, especially to the elderly, and they call on Post Office Ltd to withdraw its proposal and to retain Rhyl Crown Post Office.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of those concerned about the proposed closure of Rhyl Crown Post Office,
	Declares that Rhyl Crown Post Office should remain within the Crown Network and not become a franchise. The Petitioners believe that the proposal for a franchise will severely damage the provision of services in Rhyl.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Minister of State for Business and Enterprise to protect much-loved public services.
	And the Petitioners remain, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	[P001180]

PLANNING (MOTTINGHAM)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure to raise this issue in the Chamber, and I am delighted to see several hon. Members still here as we approach closing time—an appropriate metaphor, perhaps, given the subject of this debate.

Greg Mulholland: Not for the Porcupine.

Bob Neill: No, I hope not for the Porcupine.
	I want briefly to set out what seems to be the particularly worrying pattern of behaviour that the proposal to demolish the Porcupine public house in Mottingham in my constituency highlights. It is obviously of great concern to residents of Mottingham, which, it is worth saying, is not an amorphous part of London suburbia, but a genuine village with a real sense of identity, and the Porcupine pub is a central part of that village community. It is also worrying because the behaviour of the two substantial companies involved has potential impacts beyond this case.
	Perhaps I can put that into some context. There has been an inn on the site of the Porcupine public house since 1688. It is not, I accept, locally or statutorily listed, but it is steeped in history. There has always been a pub there in the middle of the village, and it is virtually the one remaining bit of community space left in the village, so it is of real significance to the people of the Mottingham area. It has a long local history. I am told that Tom Cribb, the 19th century world bare-knuckle boxing champion, trained in the Porcupine inn and that it has been called that since the days when a spiked machine was used to crush oats and barley in alehouses, so it has a long heritage and, as I say, is dearly loved by people in the Mottingham area. We have seen, however, a shabby and underhand means of closing this public house against the community’s wishes.
	I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister here to respond to the debate and I want to thank him personally for the trouble that he took to come down to Mottingham, visit the site and meet some of its residents—more of that in a moment. First, however, I want to thank some other people, because the campaign to save the Porcupine public house has seen many people doing a lot of hard work. It is worth mentioning Liz Keable and all the other committee officers of the Mottingham residents association, who have worked very hard; Emily Bailey, who started an online petition that has gathered more than 1,600 signatures; the local councillors, including my Conservative colleagues Charles Rideout and Roger Charsley, who represent the Mottingham ward of the London borough of Bromley, and Councillor John Hills, who represents the adjoining ward in the neighbouring London borough of Greenwich, just the other side of the road from the public house; hundreds of residents who have written in and e-mailed to support the campaign; and the 250-plus people who turned out when the Minister came to visit last week. I also wish to say special thank you to David Bingley, who started the campaign. Sadly, his ongoing hospital treatment means
	that he cannot be here to watch the debate from the Gallery, but I know he will be watching from his hospital bed, and I am sure that you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, if I say that we thank him for his efforts and wish him a speedy recovery.
	That is the history of this public house and the strength of feeling surrounding it. The Porcupine was knocked down once before, in 1922, and on that occasion the brewery provided a temporary pub for people to use while it was rebuilt, but I am afraid that a very different attitude has been adopted now. In essence, the owner of the Porcupine pub, Enterprise Inns, has in my judgment deliberately let the pub run down and then sought to dispose of it for development. I am afraid Enterprise Inns has a bad track record in that regard. It is becoming frankly notorious for such behaviour. Its four annual reports show an alarming decline in the total number of pubs it operates, from 7,399 in September 2009 down to 5,902 in September 2012. Enterprise Inns seems to have a deliberate policy of running down its estate. It is quite clear from its annual report that, having disposed of more than 400 pubs in the last year, Enterprise Inns is disposing of assets to pay down debt. It is a company that, frankly, has not had good trading results. To my mind, it seems to be behaving more like a property company than a brewing company.
	What Enterprise Inns has done in this case adds insult to injury. Not only did it dispose of the site, but it did so without giving any notice to the population. The site was never advertised. There was no sign that this public house was going to be closed. It closed literally overnight, having been sold through a commercial deal to Lidl supermarket, with no notice given to anyone. Lidl UK now proposes to demolish the public house and erect a non-descript supermarket on the site. It is reprehensible that this pattern of conduct by Enterprise Inns seems to be designed to circumvent the Government’s work to give greater protection to public houses. The Government have taken important steps, by creating the ability to list places such as the Porcupine as assets of community value and by giving greater protections in the national planning policy framework.

Clive Efford: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the campaign that he is running with the local community. As he knows, the Porcupine in Mottingham village is just across the road from my constituency, so my constituents are concerned, too. He has the full support of those who are trying to save the Dutch House pub in my constituency. This is very much about a local community coming together to save both community assets. Does he agree that this case is a test for the NPPF? We should be listening to local people, as against huge businesses such as McDonald’s, Lidl and Enterprise Inns.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I welcome his support for the campaign, and I agree.
	Enterprise Inns has a debt of £296 million and is running down its estate to pay it off. It does not seem to be interested in running its pubs, as they can be run, as going concerns. The community in Mottingham was denied the opportunity to make an application to have the Porcupine listed as an asset of community value in advance, because it was given no notice. By the time the
	pub closed, it had already changed hands and Lidl had already moved in and boarded it up. Ironically, it did so with a hoarding that was beyond the size permitted under the planning regulations—a breach of development control, which says something about Lidl’s attitude. When my hon. Friend the Minister responds, I should be grateful if he considered what more we might do about the behaviour of Enterprise Inns in seeking to circumvent the legislation that the House put in place to protect such assets.

Greg Mulholland: The all-party save the pub group is entirely behind my hon. Friend’s community campaign and will offer him any support we can. The simple answer—I hope we will hear this from the Minister—is twofold. First, as my hon. Friend will know, the great news is that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is consulting on finally dealing with the property scam that is the pubco model, which includes Enterprise Inns. I hope that we will hear later this year that that will be dealt with. Secondly, I hope that we will start to get it through to the community pubs Minister—my hon. Friend and I had debates when he used to be the community pubs Minister—that although the provisions in the Localism Act 2011 are positive, we cannot accept a planning framework that allows such behaviour. We must have a change, so that pubs cannot become supermarkets behind communities’ backs and without any consultation with those communities. That cannot be right.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would almost have had time to consume a pint in the course of his intervention.

Bob Neill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I am grateful to him for his intervention. You will know of the importance that all communities attach to their local public house, Mr Speaker, and this behaviour is particularly reprehensible. It has denied people the opportunity to step in, unlike what has happened at other places nearby, such as the Baring Hall public house near Grove Park station, where notice was given and the community was able to get the asset listed. That opportunity was denied in the case of the Porcupine as a result of the underhand behaviour of Enterprise Inns.
	The situation has been made worse by the behaviour of Lidl. It is becoming apparent that the company’s business model is one of acquiring public house sites and turning them into supermarkets in a secretive and predatory fashion—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) says that this is about collusion, and I have to say that a lot of people in Mottingham would agree.
	As I have said, the situation has been made worse by Lidl’s behaviour. Representatives of the company came to a public meeting organised by the Mottingham residents association and, to put it charitably, gave misleading information about the status of the planning application. They claimed that they already had permission to demolish the public house, when in fact they had not even made an application. Since then, although they claim that they wish to consult the community, they have done no more than board up the public house. They want to demolish it so that, in effect, the pass will have been sold
	and it will be impossible to rebuild a pub on the site, but I am pleased to say that Bromley council will have to consider a section 31 application. I am sure that it will deal with such an application in an appropriate fashion. My hon. Friend the Minister cannot prejudge planning cases, but I would simply observe that I believe that there are very strong planning grounds for deciding that this is not an appropriate place for a supermarket.
	Lidl’s poor behaviour did not stop there, however. Until I secured this debate—as well as earning a rebuke from you, Mr Speaker, for making an intervention on the matter at business questions that was perhaps a little less crisp than I try to be—Lidl had refused to engage at senior level with me or any other elected representative. Lidl is a privately owned, German-based company, and it is now buying up pubs around London and turning them into supermarkets. Ironically, there is a Lidl just 10 minutes away from this site, in Eltham, as well as branches of Marks & Spencer, the Co-op and Sainsbury’s within easy reach of it.
	I find it extraordinary that, having misled residents over the status of the application, Lidl took no steps to correct that. It put in an application, then forgot to pay the fee for about seven days, which says something about the company. When I sought a meeting with a Lidl board director, the company refused to give my office the names of its directors. We had to go to Companies House to find out who they were. It refused to give me the names, and refused to meet me until it heard about the publicity generated by this debate. That is a contemptuous way in which to treat the public.
	There are two messages for people in all this. First, they should know how Lidl is behaving in this case. Secondly, the Campaign for Real Ale is actively promoting its “List your Local” campaign, and my message to anyone with a pub owned by Enterprise Inns in their community is that they should get it listed as an asset of community value now, because they cannot trust Enterprise Inns not to sell it from under them without telling them. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. As things are, a demolition application has now been submitted and will have to be considered by Bromley council. I am happy that it will take whatever steps are appropriate, but this case demonstrates an attitude that is damaging for the community in that area.
	This is not the only occasion on which Lidl has behaved in this way. In Warlingham, it destroyed the former Good Companions public house. It knocked it down, but it has yet to submit an application to redevelop the site. It demolished a former police station in Dartford as soon as it acquired it, and the residents of Dartford have had to live with a derelict site for the subsequent 15 months. That is predatory behaviour. It is unacceptable and unbecoming of a public company. I hope that the directors on the board of Lidl will realise the reputational damage that their conduct is doing. I say that more in hope than in expectation, but we can at least use the engine of publicity to flag up their behaviour and that of Enterprise Inns. The Minister might be aware that an application has now been submitted for the Porcupine public house to be listed as an asset of community value, and I hope that it will give it some protection in due course.

Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way to me again. My constituents added their names to that application and were told that because they lived in neither the ward nor the borough, they could not have their application registered as an asset, despite that fact that it is happening in the middle of their village, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. They are very disappointed and asked me to express their view here tonight.

Bob Neill: I understand that, and it is an issue that we may need to think about, particularly given that the local authority boundaries in some urban areas do not necessarily follow the community ties with an area. I hope that even though Bromley council is not statutorily obliged to do so, it will none the less be aware of the strength of feeling from across the other side of Mottingham.
	The other option is to consider an article 4 direction, and I understand that an application to Bromley council for such a direction has been made. The one thing that we need to bear in mind is that there is sometimes a tendency for owners of properties that are subject to an article 4 direction to make excessive claims on compensation in an endeavour to deter local authorities from using the article 4 powers. That happened with the Baring Hall hotel in Grove park, where I understand a claim for compensation of about £1 million was initially made, but has now been significantly reduced. There is, of course, an onus on the owner who seeks compensation for article 4 actually to prove loss. I wonder whether the Minister can say more about the guidance that we can give to local authorities, so that they are not intimidated against using article 4 directions by the behaviour of large, well-funded commercial organisations.
	I hope that I have now had the chance to ventilate on a subject that is hugely important to my constituents. I end by saying that the porcupine is a seemingly harmless animal until provoked. Well, the residents of Mottingham have been thoroughly and justifiably provoked by the threat to their Porcupine. I hope that this debate has given us the chance to flag up what amounts to troubling behaviour not just for residents of Mottingham, but for anyone concerned about protecting valued local pubs across the country.

Brandon Lewis: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on securing this important debate. It is important to the people of Mottingham and the Porcupine pub, but it also gives us a chance—as we have heard from the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), the chairman of the all-party parliamentary save the pub group and from the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), the member for the Dutch House—to outline some of the rules affecting pubs and their acquisition by some of the companies mentioned.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is aware that on 29 April, Lidl UK submitted a part 31 notification to the London borough of Bromley council of its intention to demolish the Porcupine pub. I know that my hon. Friend has expressed his concerns directly
	to the council about the implications of the notification, so that his views and those of his constituents can rightly be taken into account when the council considers the case, which it has to do before 28 May. I also know that local residents recently submitted, as my hon. Friend has said, a request to the council for an article 4 direction for the removal of permitted development rights for both demolition and change of use on the site, which I am advised is still being considered by the council. The council will need to notify the Secretary of State if and when a direction has been drafted.
	As my hon. Friend has outlined, the Porcupine pub ceased trading in March and the site was sold to Lidl UK at around the same time. It is still the case that no formal planning application has been submitted to the council regarding the proposals. I know that my hon. Friend knows from his time in the Department for Communities and Local Government that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of the notification or the proposed article 4 direction, or indeed on the possible success or otherwise of any planning application for the erection of a retail unit on the site, as I would not wish to prejudice the Secretary of State’s position, should any of these matters come before him. I nevertheless note one of my hon. Friend’s closing comments about the value of guidelines for councils’ use of article 4 directions, which might provide councillors with greater knowledge.
	When I visited the Porcupine with my hon. Friend, councillors asked me about the article 4 direction and about the compensation issue. I think that we need to look into just how guarded council officers are being about the advice that they are giving members about the risk of compensation. We need to ensure that there is a proper understanding of the risk and that it is not overstated, so that councils do not overestimate it and fail to take an opportunity that could be used in many cases to protect pubs under article 4.
	I know that my hon. Friend is well versed in the planning system, to which he has referred in detail this evening. However, for the record, I will explain the position relating to, in particular, part 31 notifications and article 4.
	The demolition of most buildings is permitted development, which means that specific planning permission is not required. However, that is subject to a requirement to notify the local planning authority concerned through a part 31 notification, so it can decide whether to prescribe the method of demolition and restoration of the site. That often gives a community a brief opportunity to become aware of an issue and do something about it, as has happened in the case of the Porcupine.
	As for article 4 directions under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, public houses and shops are classed as separate uses under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. That recognises the different land use impacts of their particular uses, and would ordinarily mean that planning permission would be required to change from one class to another. When issues arise, however, local authorities, working with their communities, can restrict the use of permitted development rights by means of an article 4 direction, and, as my hon. Friend said, that is being considered in this case.
	As soon as the direction has been drafted, notice is served locally for 21 days, and the Secretary of State is notified at the same time. Having considered the local consultation responses, the local authority then considers whether to confirm the direction. It can do that by serving a further notice locally and notifying the Secretary of State.
	There have been calls in the House recently for the removal of permitted development rights that allow pubs to convert to other uses at a national level. The hon. Member for Leeds North West, representing the save the pub group, has spoken about that on a number of occasions. However, the Government are clear about the fact that localism should be at the heart of planning. We need to avoid any disproportionate restrictions on change of use that might result in more empty buildings, spoiling the local environment and holding back economic development. However, that does not prevent us from doing what we can to protect our community pubs.
	As my hon. Friend said, we should encourage communities to ensure that their locals are listed as community assets. CAMRA is running a fantastic campaign, and I urge Members to look at its website, which gives clear and simple directions about how to list a pub. It is good to hear that the people of Mottingham are adopting that route while there is still a building to protect. I sensed the public feeling there the other day, when at least 200 of them turned out. Listing a pub is a simple process. It is necessary to be on the electoral roll, but I noted my hon. Friend’s comments on that requirement, and I will look into it. Only 21 people in the area need to propose the listing, and I encourage people to do it.

Greg Mulholland: Will the Minister give way?

Brandon Lewis: I will give way briefly.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the Minister for listening to what has been said about this issue. However, he is now a CAMRA member—I am delighted about that—and he knows that CAMRA does not agree with him and believes that we need more protection. It is great that he visited the pub, but, having heard the case, does he honestly think that it is in the interests of localism or pubs to retain a national planning framework that allows the conversion of wanted, full, busy, profitable pubs to branches of McDonald’s, supermarkets or flats without the community’s having a say? That is not in the interests of localism. It is undermining what the Minister and I both believe in.

Brandon Lewis: I was about to say something about that. There is sometimes a gap when a company buys a property that was not already listed and does not need to demolish it. The first a resident may know about it is when the boarding goes up advertising whichever company that happens to be. That may be the first indication that Enterprise Inns, or whoever, has sold it off.
	As I have said, we do not intend to change planning laws per se, but we do need to ensure that whatever we do is proportionate. The listing of a community asset is a simple, light-touch, but effective way of protecting a pub. However, I accept that there may be an opportunity to take that a step further in order to prevent circumstances in which a resident does not know that a property has been sold or has become a Tesco, a Lidl or a McDonald’s until the store opens or the boarding goes up. I am prepared to look at that, but I must make it clear that,
	as I have outlined, we are not going to make any substantive changes to change of use and general planning that are disproportionate.
	I want to stress again that communities that value their pubs should do what they can to have them listed. The Government have done a great deal to help to protect pubs through our work on planning, under the national planning framework, and through providing the ability to list a pub as a community asset. That has had a great impact. We have also helped to protect pubs by developing the Plunkett Foundation so our communities can buy pubs, and we have put funding into Pub is the Hub. There is also the Chancellor’s fantastic move to cut the beer duty escalator and beer duty itself.
	In conclusion, I am not in a position to comment on the specific case of the Porcupine pub, although I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on the fantastic work he is doing in highlighting what is happening and on the action he has taken. I cannot go any further at present without being prejudicial to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in the planning system, so I will leave it there, and wish my hon. Friend and the residents of Mottingham well in their endeavours.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.